Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Advance Factory, Coatbridge

Mr. Dempsey: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the new advance factory at Coatbridge is likely to be completed; and if he has found a suitable tenant to occupy it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): It is expected that the structure will be completed in August, 1960. A suitable tenant has not yet been found.

Mr. Dempsey: When looking for a suitable tenant, will the Minister bear in mind the need to induce someone who can provide reasonable employment for large numbers, in view of the high unemployment rate?

Mr. Rodgers: We will certainly bear that point in mind. At the present moment, unfortunately, we have no one really interested in it.

Monkland Canal, Coatbridge

Mr. Dempsey: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a grant to the appropriate local authority towards the removal of the unsightly section of the Monkland Canal, Coatbridge.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The Board of Trade has no power to make a grant for this purpose. I would advise the hon. Member to wait until the Local Employment Bill has become law, when the local authority could approach the Secretary of Stale for Scotland under Section 5 (4) of the new Act.

Mr. Dempsey: Whilst thanking the Minister very much indeed for his kind

advice, may I draw his attention to the fact that this particular project was approved by his Department in November, 1947, and that, therefore, at this time of day it seems rather strange that it is not a matter for the Board of Trade at all?

Mr. Rodgers: Two derelict site projects at Coatbridge have already been approved. Unfortunately, the Monkland Canal, which I agree is an unsightly mess, did not prove to be derelict in the meaning of that word at law, which is why it must await the new Local Employment Bill.

Trade with China

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the import restrictions on trade with China; what modifications have been made or are intended; what quotas there are for glassware, and what these include; to what extent ceilings have been fixed for the importation of Chinese goods; and whether he will make a full statement on the problems involved in the fixing of ceilings, quotas and the need for a large scale expansion of mutual trade.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): As the Answer is a long one and contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the Minister of State remember that where he and I were employed we benefited for many years to the extent of millions of pounds worth of orders? Does his recent experience of a visit to China confirm that there is enormous good will towards the people of this country, especially for our technique and skill, and, if so, has not the time arrived when there should be a large-scale expansion of trade?

Mr. Erroll: I am glad to say that trade with China in both directions is expanding.

Following is the information:
The new import licensing arrangements for China have been discussed with the Chinese authorities and with a number of firms and representative trade organisations. I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on 27th January to my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) about the Government's policy in expanding


trade with China and to the Answer given on 23rd February to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) about the allocation of licences. As regards the quotas for glassware, I would refer to the

QUOTAS FOR IMPORTS FROM CHINA FOR THE PERIOD 1ST JANUARY TO 31ST DECEMBER, 1960 ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ARRANGEMENTS ANNOUNCED ON 4TH NOVEMBER 1959M


Quota Heading
Value


Meat and meat products, frozen or in airtight containers (of which not more than £150,000 for poultry)
…
…
£400,000


Fish, fresh, frozen or preserved, other than fish packed in airtight containers 
…
…
£300,000


Butter
…
…
£100,000


Canned oranges (including Clementines, mandarins and tangarines) and canned pineapple (of which not more than £150,000 for canned pineapple)
…
…
£550,000


Nuts in shell, or shelled
…
…
£250,000


Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals (subject to type)
…
…
£350,000


Silk piece goods for home retention (originally £250,000) increased to
…
…
£380,000


Headgear (including hat bodies, hoods and shapes) not made wholly or partly of wool or felt (originally £500,000) increased to
…
…
£655,000


Hand-made carpets (originally £500,000) increased to
…
…
£634,000


Pottery (originally £50,000) increased to
…
…
£80,000


Basketware (other than wicker, cane or willow) and manufactures of raffia and straw
…
…
£150,000


Sports goods, toys and games
…
…
£180,000


Additional Quotas (since the original announcement)—


Fancy goods
…
…
£250,000


Seagrass mats
…
…
£320,000


Furniture and woodware
…
…
£150,000


Table glassware
…
…
£25,000


Chinese food specialities
…
…
£75,000


Canned fruit, other than oranges and pineapple
…
…
£50,000


Provisional Quotas


Fruit and vegetables (variously grouped)
each approx
£25,000


Canned fish
each approx
£25,000


Preserved ginger
each approx
£25,000


Textiles and manufactures thereof, not covered by other quotas (variously grouped)
each approx
£25,000


Stationery
each approx
£25,000


Cutlery and hardware
each approx
£25,000


Leather goods and footwear
each approx
£25,000


Brushes
each approx
£25,000


Gloves
each approx
£25,000


Musical instruments
each approx
£25,000


NOTE.—There has not been sufficient interest in other items for formal quota arrangements to be made and these have generally been dealt with by issuing licences to applicants on request.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action it is intended to take to bring about increased trade with China; to what extent China's sterling balances have increased, and whether this permits an increase in United Kingdom exports; how exports of capital goods to China compare, as a percentage, with pre-war exports; and what technical assistance is being provided or has been offered to China.

Mr. Erroll: The services of the Department and of Her Majesty's representative in Peking are available to facilitate increased trade with China. No figures are published of China's sterling balances, but clearly any increase would help China to increase her purchases from the United Kingdom amongst other countries. The value of United Kingdom

Answer given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) on 4th March and to the list below of the quotas set up for China and of the modications since the new arrangements were first announced.

exports of capital goods to China in 1959 is estimated at approximately four times that in 1938. As regards the last part of the Question, a number of technical facilities in the United Kingdom are available to the Chinese should they wish to use them.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Whilst appreciating that reply, may I ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that prior to the war large numbers of Chinese students who were studying technical questions used to visit this country and our men, in return, used to visit China? It was a mutual flow between the two countries. Those of us who have had large numbers of Chinese students working with us remember the enormous good will that it created. Has not the time arrived when that sort of exchange should be renewed?

Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir, I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and in part answer to his previous supplementary question I would point out that during my visit to China I particularly reminded the Chinese of our willingness to receive engineering and other students in this country.

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in granting licences for imports from China, how many new applications have been granted and how many refused in the last six months; and what value of trade has been allowed to new applicants in this period.

Mr. Erroll: I regret that this information could not be obtained without a disproportionate amount of work.

Mr. Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the complaints that are being made from a number of people that new applications for licences for trade with China are being refused on the grounds that they have no past experience and that the quotas allow only for those who have been in the trade already? Will he look into this whole matter, in view of the promise, which he has just confirmed, that the Government are in favour of the maximum expansion of trade with China, because it is extremely frustrating to those who feel that they have some trade they would like to enter?

Mr. Erroll: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked into this matter. In any import licensing system one must have regard first to those who have already been in the trade. There have been a large number of applications quite unrelated in size to the level of the trade by the applicant concerned. We look particularly carefully at new applicants for licences for trade in lines which they did not go in for before.

Sir L. Plummer: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for the publication of revised versions of Notices to Importers, Nos. 920 and 921, for the benefit of British importers of goods from China.

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend will bear this suggestion in mind. The hon. Member may find it helpful to refer to the list of quotas I am today circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT as part of my Answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith).

Sir L. Plummer: I am grateful to the Minister for making an attempt to clear up what was causing a great deal of confusion. Is he aware that as a result of the changes which have come about since 4th November quotas have been supplemented by import licences and that many importers do not know from period to period whether their import licences will be granted? Will he, in the interest of clarification, publish a new statement so that they can understand exactly where they stand?

Mr. Erroll: As I said in my main Answer, we will give careful consideration to the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a list of imports from China subject to quota restrictions in respect of which his Department is rejecting all licence applications from firms unable to give details of past trade.

Mr. Erroll: With permission, I will circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

Cotton and rayon textiles and manufactures.
Meat and meat products.
Butter.
Canned pineapple.
Other canned fruit (excluding pineapple and oranges).
Silk piece goods.
Pottery.
Basketware and straw manufactures.
Table glassware.
Stationery.
Leather goods, including footwear.

Firms (Assistance)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek the consent of the firms concerned to publish the financial and other terms under which they have recently been induced to go to South Wales, Merseyside and Scotland.

Mr. J. Rodgers: No. Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Why not? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that considerable sums of public money are involved here and that his hon. Friends are repeatedly asking for more control over the spending of public money? Cannot we be assured of their support, and, if we get it over this quite reasonable request, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to reconsider the matter?

Mr. Rodgers: No, Sir. It would be quite wrong for the Board of Trade to put itself in a position where it would have to ask firms in receipt of D.A.T.A.C. assistance and other forms of assistance to disclose details of that assistance.

Oil Heaters (British Standard)

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the revision of British Standard 2049, including new safety standards for oil heaters, may be expected.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I understand that at a meeting yesterday agreement was reached on all the main features of a new British Standard for oil heaters, which will go to the printers almost immediately.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very great concern felt by everyone in the country, including reputable oil heater manufacturers, about the problem of getting the Standard made a compulsory one as soon as possible? Can he say that all steps will be taken after this afternoon's Bill, which is to be brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), to make certain that this Standard is made law at the very first possible moment?

Mr. Rodgers: I fully appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend, but, of course, the British Standard has no statutory force. The question of legislation concerning oil heaters would really be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is in favour of applying some legislative sanction to whatever it is that the British Standards Institution has now decided to recommend?

Mr. Rodgers: As I said, I think that that is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

British Trade Fair, Helsinki

Commander Courtney: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the estimated cost to the Government and to British industry, respectively, of the official British Trade Fair in Helsinki in 1957.

Mr. Enroll: The British Trade Fair at Helsinki in 1957 was organised by British Overseas Fairs Limited on behalf of the Federation of British Industries. The cost of the official exhibit in the Fair was £12,008. I have no information about the cost to British industry.

Commander Courtney: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that he takes the best possible political and commercial advice before investment of this magnitude is undertaken?

Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is guided by the Exhibitions Advisory Committee, of which I am chairman. It comprises a number of eminent industrialists, whose advice is extremely valuable in these matters.

Finland

Commander Courtney: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of British exports to Finland in 1958 and 1959, expressed as a percentage of the figure for 1957.

Mr. Erroll: Eighty-six per cent. in 1958 and 101 per cent. in 1959.

Commander Courtney: Would my hon. Friend agree that the commercial return from this 1957 investment has so far been virtually nil?

Mr. Erroll: No. I do not think one can look at a fair in isolation. There are a number of factors which affect the level of trade between two countries. The fair was valuable in promoting an increased volume of trade.

Land Vehicles (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the President of the Board of Trade how soon he expects that the Monopolies Commission will issue their report on the supply of electrical equipment for mechanically propelled land vehicles; what time has been spent by the Commission up to the present time in investigating this matter; and on what date it was first referred to the Commission.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The reference was made to the Commission on the 18th April, 1957, and it has been working on it for just under three years. This is a


very complicated inquiry, and it is not yet possible to say when it will be completed.

Mr. Johnson: What useful results have been achieved by this organisation which, according to my hon. Friend's Department, appears to cost £60,000 a year? Can my hon. Friend say, in view of the inordinately long time it takes to produce a report at all, what purpose is served by its continued existence?

Mr. Rodgers: That is another question.

Monopolies Commission (Expenses of Witnesses)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements are made for the payment of expenses incurred by witnesses giving evidence to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Under Section 8 (4) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948, the Commission has discretion to pay the expenses of any witness required to appear before it. The extent to which the Commission uses its discretion in this matter is for it to decide. I understand that it has not refused to make payments in any case in which it has been asked to do so.

Mr. Johnson: While welcoming that answer, may I ask whether my hon. Friend does not think that businessmen would be much better employed in looking after their businesses than in giving evidence to a body which produces negative results?

Mr. Rodgers: That may well be, but the total paid to witnesses has been negligible—only £10 so far.

Durham

Mr. Grey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to include the Durham Exchange area in the list of places eligible for assistance under the Local Employment Bill.

Mr. J. Rodgers: No, Sir. Unemployment in the Durham Exchange area is not high and it is not expected to rise substantially.

Mr. Grey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures are increasing in Durham and will continue to do so in view of the fact that in the near future

there is likely to be the closure of a pit and that two coking plants are also to be closed? In view of this change, could he be more generous and include the Durham Exchange area on the list?

Mr. Rodgers: The February figures show that there has been a decrease of ·3 per cent. compared with February last year—from 2·9 per cent. to 2·6 per cent. We are aware of the closures of two collieries and are watching the position very carefully.

Mr. Ainsley: As this exchange area takes in a good part of my constituency and the hon. Gentleman did pay a fleeting visit to a portion of that area, is he-aware of the alarm expressed locally by the people at the closure of by-product plants and pits in the area? Will he reconsider the position?

Mr. Rodgers: We are watching the position. If it appears to us that there is a threat of persistent unemployment —a level at or above 4·5 per cent.—we will immediately take action.

Pressed Steel Company, Ltd.

Mr. Montgomery: asked the President of the Board of Trade what communication he has received from the Pressed Steel Company, Limited, with regard to the siting of their new extension in the North-East.

Mr. J. Rodgers: We are in discussion with the firm, but discussions have not yet reached the stage at which it is possible for me to make a statement.

Mr. Montgomery: When does my hon. Friend think that he will be in a position to make an announcement? Could he give us the exact date, or any date? Without wishing to prejudice the discussions which are undoubtedly going on at present, may I ask if he would make it clear to this firm that it would be very welcome in the North-East, where we have excellent workers and a first class labour relations record?

Mr. Rodgers: I am glad to welcome the latter part of that supplementary question. Pressed Steel has visited the North-East and we are in constant touch, but it is for the firm to make an announcement of its plans rather than the Board of Trade.

New Potatoes

Mr. Brewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he has made regarding the importation of new potatoes from Cyprus, Malta, and Greece.

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend has made no special arrangements.

Mr. Brewis: Do I understand from that reply that my hon. Friend is not going to make any special arrangements? If that is so, will he endeavour to phase imports so as not to cause a glut in the home market, bearing in mind that last year early potatoes of Ayrshire were practically unsaleable?

Mr. Erroll: Imports of new potatoes are admitted under open general licence between 1st November in one year and 31st August in the next. I see nothing at present which is likely to cause us to change this practice.

British Sulphate of Ammonia Federation, Limited

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the sellers agreement between the British Sulphate of Ammonia Federation, Limited, and its members to be brought before the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I understand that the Registrar is not yet in a position to say when this case will be heard by the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. Willey: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is very urgent, in view of the Monopolies Commission's Report itself, and also the discrepancy between the world price and our domestic price? Can he not take steps to expedite the consideration of this matter?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree about the urgency, but it is for the Registrar to decide the order in which proceedings shall be started. I do not think there are any steps we can now take.

North-East Region

Mr. Boyden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what recent consultations officers of his Department have had with firms having large offices in London, with a view to their being

assisted under the impending Local Employment Bill to move part or the whole of their offices to areas of high unemployment such as the North-East.

Mr. J. Rodgers: As the hon. Member will be aware from the debates on the Bill both here and in another place, while the Board have no powers to control the building of offices we nevertheless attempt wherever possible to suggest offices might move out of London and other congested areas. I am shortly taking steps to bring the facilities available under the Bill to the attention of a very large number of concerns using office space, and I hope this may have the desirable effect the hon. Member mentions.

Mr. Boyden: Could the hon. Gentleman say how many consultations he has had in 1960 with firms which might be persuaded to move their offices to the North-East and how many firms were involved? Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman took the initiative in persuading firms?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I cannot give exact figures, but it might be some consolation to the hon. Member to know that the headquarters of the Management Corporation under the new Local Employment Bill will be in the North-East.

Team Valley Trading Estate (Firm)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been agreed upon to enable the firm of Smith's Delivery Vehicles Ltd. to expand its production on the Team Valley Trading Estate.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The firm is acquiring a site of nine acres on the Team Valley Trading Estate for the purpose of erecting a factory of 120,000 sq. ft. with its own finance.

Dame Irene Ward: May I thank my hon. Friend for that announcement and add, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) said, how welcome this news will be to the North-East Coast?

Mr. Rodgers: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks.

Mr. Manuel: What a change.

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be equally pleased to know that this new factory should result in 200 new jobs in that area.

North-East Lancashire

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further consideration he has given to the placing of Nelson and Colne, and other localities forming part of the North-East Lancashire development area, upon the list of places qualified to receive assistance under the Local Employment Bill.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend has been keeping a close watch on the employment situation in these localities and is satisfied that in none of them are conditions at present such as would justify the provision of assistance under the terms of the Local Employment Bill.

Mr. Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to look at this matter again as one of extreme urgency? Will he draw his hon. Friends attention to the fact that the figures which I gave on 23rd February were accepted as accurate by the Parliamentary Secretary himself only last night? Is he aware that they show that by 31st March there will be in Nelson and Colne alone a further 2,300 unemployed and an unknown figure for the rest of the area? Is is not the hon. Gentleman's duty under the Bill not to wait for the unemployment to happen before bringing the area within the ambit of the Local Employment Bill but to take steps where such a situation is likely shortly to happen? Will he not look at the matter again, very urgently?

Mr. Rodgers: As I equally pointed out in yesterday's debate, in the North-East Lancashire development area there are 4,000 jobs in prospect at the moment.

Mr. Silverman: And there are 3,000 unemployed coming on.

Tyneside East

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a list of the firms through which it is hoped to provide 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in South Tyneside East; and what further information he now has about the other prospects of additional employment in the area.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Estimates of jobs in prospect are based on confidential information provided by the firms concerned. I therefore cannot give the hon. Member the list for which he asks.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that these jobs will eventually materialise, and can he say when they will materialise?

Mr. Rodgers: I am afraid that I could not say that, but we try to be as accurate as possible in our estimates.

Leipzig Fair

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many British firms exhibited British goods for sale in the Pavilion organised by the Federation of British Industries at the Leipzig Fair; how many British business firms were represented as potential purchasers; and what was the total value of business done by British firms at or in connection with the Fair, including purchases as well as sales.

Mr. Erroll: I am informed by the Federation of British Industries that 47 British firms exhibited goods for sale inside the Pavilion and five in the outdoor area immediately adjacent. Thirty-five other British firms exhibited elsewhere in the Fair. I have no information about the number of British firms which sent buyers to the Fair, nor about how much business, whether sales or purchases, was done during the course of the Fair.

Mr. Silverman: Will the Minister say what steps he is taking to ascertain what was the volume of business, which many of us, were informed was very considerable? Does he not consider that it is a real triumph for the Federation of British Industries and for British industries generally to have been able to stage such a show and do a considerable volume of business with a country that does not even exist? Will he further consider whether their efforts might not now be assisted by giving them in Leipzig, at any rate for the period of some future fairs, some consular assistance?

Mr. Erroll: It is not usually possible to obtain for any fair the exact value of the orders booked during the period of the fair, nor should the value of the


fair be assessed in terms of orders placed. As regards a consul for Leipzig, that, of course, would be quite out of the question since we do not recognise the East German régime.

Mr. Silverman: The Government had better recognise it, then.

Fisons, Limited

Mr. Oram: asked the President of the Board of Trade if his consultations about the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission on chemical fertilisers will include discussions with Fisons, Limited, on the level of their profits.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Oram: Has the Minister noticed that the chairman of Fisons has recently been trying to have it both ways? When the Commission's Report was published he quoted more recent figures than those available to the Commission in order to prove that profitability was down, but when a fortnight later he wanted to impress the shareholders of British Drug Houses he quoted still more recent figures to show that profits had recently been doubled. What action will the hon. Gentleman take to make sure that the public interests are served?

Mr. Rodgers: Discussions with Fisons have already begun this month. It would be premature for me to say what the outcome of these talks will be.

Local Employment Bill (Development Districts)

Mr. Manuel: asked the President of the Board of Trade what help will be given to local authorities within an area scheduled under the Local Employment Bill to rent or sell factory buildings or land for employment purposes in their industrial estates.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Help under the Local Employment Bill is available to local authorities in development districts for various purposes, but these do not include the sale or leasing of land or buildings.

Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities which have acquired industrial estates have increased their own local rate liability by a fair amount? Is he not prepared to

notify these local authorities that the 85 per cent. difference between the actual cost of building or the cost of acquisition as against the valuer's assessment could be used by them in negotiating to get industrialists to take over these buildings or land?

Mr. Rodgers: No, Sir. Where the local authority itself is providing employment, for example, in building a factory or a harbour for its own purposes, it can apply for assistance; or it can apply for assistance to clear derelict sites, provide basic services, build approach roads and things of that kind. But local authorities are not covered in the way in which the hon. Member indicated.

Summer Holiday Season (Committee)

Sir R. Robinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a committee has yet been appointed to review the problem of extending the summer holiday season; and what are its terms of reference.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Yes, Sir. The Committee, under the chairmanship of a senior member of my Department, will be composed of representatives from the Treasury, Home Office, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Labour and the Scottish Education Department. Representatives of the Welsh Office and of the Government of Northern Ireland will also be associated with the work of the Committee and free to join its deliberations as necessary.
The Committee's terms of reference will be "To consider what action the Government can take to encourage the extension of the summer holiday season in Great Britain in order to relieve congestion at the peak holiday period; to consult the interests concerned; and to make recommendations."

Sir R. Robinson: Will my hon. Friend say what facilities will be available to interested parties to make representations to this Committee?

Mr. Rodgers: Representations can be made by independent organisations to this official Committee, and of course the British Travel and Holidays Association will be closely associated with the Committee during its entire work.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I may have missed it and I am not complaining, but may I ask whether industry is to be represented on the Committee? In view of the fact that the trade unions are seriously involved, with their millions of members, are they to be represented?

Mr. Rodgers: The trade unions can make representations, but this is an official Committee consisting entirely of civil servants.

Tourists

Sir R. Robinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken since the Conference on Tourism in May, 1958, to encourage the flow of overseas tourists to this country.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Since the Conference on Tourism the Government have taken a number of steps in several fields designed to promote the flow of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom. The details are necessarily somewhat lengthy and I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. All of these measures have a bearing on topics that were discussed at the Conference.

Mr. Snow: Could the hon. Gentleman pay some attention to the responsibilities of this organisation for the publicity which is presented to potential overseas tourists in this country, which is very old-fashioned and not particularly attractive? Is he aware that there are much better things to offer than vistas of Beefeaters and Guardsmen to foreigners as worth while their investigating in this country? Is he aware that The British countryside is not visited sufficiently by tourists?

Mr. Rodgers: This is a matter for the British Travel and Holidays Association. I take it that the hon. Member is referring to its advertising. Perhaps he would like to get in touch with it direct.

Mr. Snow: That is the hon. Gentleman's job.

Following are the details:

1. The annual Grant in Aid to the British Travel and Holidays Association was increased for the year 1959–60 by £250,000 to a maximum of £1,050,000 and, subject to Parliamentary approval, the Government proposes to maintain it at this level for the years 1960-61 and 1961–62

2. The Government has entered into negotiations with nine member countries of the O.E.E.C. with a view to concluding agreements that would allow citizens of those countries to visit the United Kingdom for up to three months on production of a valid national identity card instead of a passport, associated where necessary with a United Kingdom Visitor's card which will be available without charge.
3. Arrangements have been concluded with the French authorities for passport-free day trips by air in each direction until Easter this year and discussions with regard to the summer season are imminent.
4. The Government has entered into negotiations with five Latin-American countries with a view to concluding agreements for the mutual abolition of visas. In the case of Mexico, these negotiations have been brought to a successful conclusion, and the Agreement has been in operation since the 1st January, 1960.
5. Facilities for the sale of duty-free wines and spirits to departing travellers have been introduced at three United Kingdom Airports —London, Prestwick and Renfrew.
6. The Government is at present conducting a survey of the views of a wide range of industry, commerce and agriculture on the desirability of a permanent extension to the period of Summer Time.
7. The Home Office has undertaken consultations with interested bodies on possible reforms of the licensing laws in England and Wales. A Committee has also been set up under the chairmanship of Lord Guest to inquire into some aspects of the licensing laws of Scotland.

Fertilisers

Mr. Wade: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the price to farmers of sulphate of ammonia is considerably higher than prevailing world prices, and that there is an import duty on nitrogenous fertilisers, including sulphate of ammonia, which helps to keep up the price in this country, and that this price is in part paid for by subsidy, whether he will remove the duty on nitrogenous fertilisers and thereby enable the subsidy to be reduced and at the same time enable some competition to be introduced into the fertiliser industry.

Mr. Erroll: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a Question on sulphate of ammonia by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 10th March. My right hon. Friend is always ready to consider applications from representative bodies of users for reduction or removal of duty on other nitrogenous fertilisers.

Mr. Wade: Is it not a farcical position that an industry which is admittedly in a monopoly position should be supported both by a tariff and by a subsidy? Would it not be a practical step, which could be taken immediately, to reduce prices to remove the import duty?

Mr. Enroll: The import duty is under examination, and any question relating to subsidy is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware, admitting all the considerations I have just heard, that this industry is extremely well organised today—[An HON. MEMBER: "Too well organised."]—that it is firmly capable of standing up to world competition, and indeed is desirous of doing so, and that on those grounds the import duty could be reconsidered?

Mr. Erroll: All factors are being taken into account.

Mr. Willey: As the Minister has referred to the reply he gave me, can he tell me when I shall get a satisfactory reply?

Mr. Enroll: Yes, Sir, when the information becomes available.

Central West Fife

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the numbers employed at the Lurgi plant at Westfield, Fife, are likely to decline from about 750 now to approximately 200 in October, and that within one year there will be 1,100 fewer jobs available in the mining industry in East Fife; and whether, in view of these considerations, he will include Central West Fife on the list of places eligible for aid under the terms of the Local Employment Bill.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend is aware that the numbers employed on the construction of the Lurgi plant will decline during the year, and that there will be fewer jobs available in the mining industry. On the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 23rd February, when I said that a close watch would be kept on the position.

Mr. Hamilton: It is not much consolation to the man unemployed that the

Minister is going to keep watch on the situation. Will the hon. Gentleman seek to supplement the information he has now got on this area by the information provided in a series of five articles in the Scotsman a fortnight or so ago? Will he further give an indication whether he included in the Third Reading debate on the Local Government Bill the Dunferm-line area in the total Central West Fife area?

Mr. Rodgers: If the position in Dun-fermline deteriorates we shall naturally consider adding it to the list. For the purpose of the Bill it includes the employment exchange area.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that he and his right hon. Friend are looking far enough in these cases? We have now had three or four areas on which he is keeping a watch and in which unemployment seems to be likely. He will remember that "imminent" came out of the Bill.

Mr. Rodgers: I think that underlines the difficulty. We know when unemployment seems to be likely, but in many of the cases mentioned we also know that alternative employment is available, or shortly will be available.

Mr. Ross: In England that is where they will be offered employment.

Cotton Industry (Reorganisation Scheme)

Mr. Thornton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied that the methods of physically scrapping machinery under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, are effective; and what checks he has to ensure that the broken machinery is not subsequently repaired and put back into operation.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Yes, Sir. It is the Cotton Board's responsibility to ensure that the machinery is rendered permanently unfit for further use and the Board informs me that this requirement is being strictly enforced.

Monopolies Commission (References)

Mr. Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade which subjects mentioned in the 1959 Report on the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Acts he


has decided to refer to the Monopolies Commission; and, in particular, whether he has yet decided to refer newsprint, brewing. the supply of liquor to public houses, and petrol distribution to the Commission.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend has not yet reached a decision about new references to the Monopolies Commission, but in considering the matter we will, of course, bear in mind the suggestions recorded in the Commission's Annual Report.

Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that as regards newsprint the community is held to ransom by price-fixing agreements which lead to very large profits on the part of newsprint manufacturers; that as regards the supply of liquor, a few brewers decide what shall or shall not be drunk in thousands of public houses, with no freedom of choice; and that as regards petrol, there has been no free and honest competition for years and years?

Mr. Rodgers: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentlemas has said, but in addition to the references in the original Question there have been suggestions that we might consider referring the following—aluminium semi-manufactures, colour films, wallpaper, cartridges, insulated electric cables—to which we shall give consideration.

Mr. Gower: In regard to cases which are likely at some future date to come before the Restrictive Practices Court, can my hon. Friend explain how he makes up his mind what to refer to the Monopolies Commission? Can he say anything about that.

Commonwealth and Sterling Area (Statistical Abstract)

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider the decision no longer to publish in the Commonwealth and Sterling Area Statistical Abstract detailed tables showing the trade of individual countries analysed by direction and by commodities, in view of the fact that the Direction of International Trade Statistics, published by the United Nations, gives them only in United States dollars and the Year Book of International Trade Statistics is not as up to date as the Statistical Abstract.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. We should not be justified in devoting our limited statistical resources to publishing information which is available elsewhere.

Mr. Russell: Is my hon. Friend aware that this information is not available until later than it used to be when it was published in the "Statistical Abstract"? Can he tell us the extra cost of providing it?

Mr. Erroll: I could not give the extra cost without having notice of that question. I am aware that there is delay this year in the provision of part of the information by the United Nations services concerned, but I do not think there will be in future.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that racks for gramophone records are subject to tax of 50 per cent. whereas cabinets are subject to tax at only 5 per cent.; why a rack is taxed ten times more than a cabinet, having regard to the identity of purpose between the two articles; and whether he will reduce the rate of Purchase Tax on record racks from 50 per cent. to 5 per cent., thus restoring uniformity and equality between record racks and record cabinets.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): My hon. Friend appears to be in error. Racks and cabinets designed specifically for the storage of gramophone records are all taxable at the rate of 50 per cent.

Hon. Members: Wrong again.

Mr. Nabarro: No, I am not wrong again. Having regard to my right hon. Friend's reply, and to the fact that I checked this morning with the largest distributor of gramophone record racks in London that he has been collecting tax at 50 per cent. on these articles for the last four years, and as a mistake has obviously been made by Customs and Excise, would not my right hon. Friend undertake to refund the whole of the difference in tax to the people who have been illicitly charged?

Mr. Amory: No, Sir, the information my hon. Friend gives does not conflict with the Answer to ibis Question which I have given, but racks and cabinets are different things. I hope that my hon. Friend will not harass me to the point where I should express the wish that he should end up on the rack rather than in the Cabinet.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend now undertake to re-examine this matter, as it is perfectly clear that his Department has illicitly collected a large sum in taxes during the last few years? I will send him the information tomorrow morning to enable him to refund the tax.

Mr. Amory: I will read my hon. Friend's letter tomorow morning, but will he read the reply I have just given?

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the influence and incidence of Purchase Tax upon decor, for what reason paints and distempers used for that purpose are free of Purchase Tax, whereas wallpapers, friezes, panels and lincrusta attract Purchase Tax; why this discrimination is occurring against persons who prefer wallpaper to paint or distemper; and whether he will remedy this by abolishing Purchase Tax on all wall coverings.

Mr. Amory: I would remind my hon. Friend that whereas most wallpaper is used for domestic decoration, most paint is not; and, as regards the last part of the Question, that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, but why does my right hon. Friend allow his own personal idiosyncrasies and whims in matters of decor to obtrude into the Purchase Tax Schedules? Should he not treat all wall coverings with fiscal equity as he treats all floor coverings, including carpets, with fiscal equity? Why does he seek to discriminate and distinguish?

Mr. Amory: I think there are good reasons for discriminating between one type of decor and another. My hon. Friend has mentioned lincrusta, which I am told is a superimposed decoration on a layer of plaster impregnated with linseed oil on a paper base. I am sure

that the decoration of which he is so rightly proud, being a genuine built-in article, does not come under that heading.

Mr. E. Johnson: Whilst I realise that my right hon. Friend cannot anticipate Ms Budget statement, will he look at the question of Purchase Tax on wallpaper, because it is having a serious effect on the industry?

Mr. Amory: If my hon. Friend will look at the sale of wallpaper over the past two or three years, he will see that it has been sharply on the upgrade.

Sovereigns

Mr. Dodds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many golden sovereigns were minted in 1957, 1958 and 1959, respectively; and what is the policy for disposing of them.

Mr. Amory: The number of sovereigns minted in the calendar year 1957 was 2,072,000; in 1958, 8,700,000; in 1959, 1,385,368. As to the policy for disposing of these sovereigns, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby) on 11th March, 1958. Sales of sovereigns may now be made against payment in external sterling or any foreign currency.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of an advertisement in a national newspaper which states:
1959, 1958 and 1957 gold sovereigns, mint condition, £4 each "?
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the "racket" that businessmen on the Continent are buying the sovereigns, bringing them to this country and selling them, using the profits to help pay for their business expenses in Britain? Does not this sort of business destroy the special objective of minting these sovereigns with a view to obtaining foreign currency?

Mr. Amory: I would be glad if the hon. Member would send me any information he possesses about the practice which he alleges. In the meantime, I should like to make it clear that anyone acquiring gold sovereigns in this country must, under law, hand them over to the authorities.

Mr. Dodds: Is it not a fact that people who collect coins in this country are entitled to buy the sovereigns if they are advertised in this way?

Mr. Amory: Only if they are collectors' pieces.

Post-War Credits

Mr. Dodds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet in a position to announce details of a further repayment of post-war credits.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has completed his consideration of the repayment of post-war credits to the long-term sick; and whether he will now increase the categories of people to whom post-war credits may be repaid so as to include cases of long-term sickness and other cases of hardship.

Mr. Amory: I have this matter under examination, but I am not yet able to make a statement.

Mr. Dodds: This is not good enough. Does not the Chancellor agree that during the Budget last year he held out hopes of the possibility of extending the payment of post-war credits in the autumn? Since I am not one of those people who believe that the Chancellor would try for an election advantage on the eve of an election, would he tell us what went wrong so that he was not able to extend payment in the autumn?

Mr. Amory: I do not think I specifically said "in the autumn". If I did, perhaps the hon. Member will send me the words. I said that I hoped to extend the categories somewhat, and that is my hope; but at this time of year there are certain administrative difficulties to which I must have regard.

Nationalised Industries (Public Investment)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ROY JENKINS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will publish earlier information on the continued future investment plans of the nationalised industries.

Mr. Jenkins: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that "continued" seems to have crept into my Question in an unnecessary and, possibly, misleading way?

Mr. Amory: Following the recommendation of the Radcliffe Committee it is intended to publish information about prospective public investment several months earlier than at present—in the summer of the preceding year instead of in the spring of the year to which the figures relate. This will be done in a White Paper, of which the first will be published this summer.

Mr. Jenkins: Does this mean that in future we shall have the Government's estimates of public investment at least as soon as we now have from the Government the estimates of investment in private industry?

Mr. Amory: I think that is so. I am not sure of the exact dates on which the Board of Trade gives the estimates; I believe that two estimates are issued during the year. The effect will be that during the summer there will be issued the figures of the provisionally-approved expenditure for each nationalised industry for the following year. That is to say, the White Paper which is published this summer will give the figures for the year 1961–62.

Private Firms (Public Money)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider making it a condition of public money being lent to private firms that the firms to which it is lent should appoint a Treasury representative to sit on their boards.

Mr. Amory: Whenever public money is lent to private firms the Government consider all appropriate methods of safeguarding the national interest. I would not expect Government representation on the boards of companies to be desirable or necessary for this purpose save in very exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say why insurance companies consider it desirable that they should have representatives on the boards of companies to which they lend money? Does he consider that they are right in doing this? If so, why do not the Government do the same?

Mr. Amory: The right hon. Gentleman would, I think, agree that it is by no means the general practice of insurance companies to put directors on the


boards of companies to which they lend money. I should say that it is exceptional.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the principles on which the Treasury acts in deciding whether or not to lend money to private firms.

Mr. Amory: The Government lend money to private firms only in exceptional circumstances and where the public interest justifies it. Such assistance is given in accordance with Parliamentary authority.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the Chancellor aware that I am not surprised that he has not been able to answer this Question at all? Is he aware that many of us on this side feel that he has no principles whatever in lending money other than to lend it for importunate widows, particularly if they are well organised and have friends in court?

Mr. Amory: One of my principles is to lend as little money as I possibly can.

Grant-aided Bodies (Questions)

Mr. Albu: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those classes of matters affecting the administration of grant-aided bodies upon which he is now prepared to answer Questions, despite previous refusals to answer on the ground that they were matters of day-to-day administration by the body concerned.

Mr. Amory: In general, as regards grants-in-aid borne on Votes accounted for by the Treasury, I am ready to answer Questions about the size of the grants and about any matters which by Statute or otherwise are reserved to the Treasury or require Treasury approval. I am also willing to give factual information about the activities of the body concerned when the facts are available and where this is compatible with the general principle that the administration of a grant-aided body and the way in which it spends its grant are matters for the body concerned and are not the responsibility of the Government.

Mr. Albu: As there are about 150 grants in aid and as the practice in answering for them varies greatly, and as the largest is that made by the Treasury itself, to the University Grants Committee, does not the right hon.

Gentleman think that he might adopt the slightly more liberal attitude announced on 25th February by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the answering of Questions on the nationalised industries?

Mr. Amory: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough carefully to read my Answer? If there are any points outside that Answer which he thinks it reasonable that I should be prepared to deal with, I should be glad if he would write to me, in which case I will look into it.

Ministerial Salaries

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, bearing in mind that Ministers receive smaller salaries than those of a large number of civil servants and executives in industry and commerce, he will take steps to alleviate the financial hardship that can occur when they leave office.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I do not think such action would be either feasible or justifiable.

Mr. Cronin: Is the Chancellor satisfied with the present situation, in which Conservative Ministers receive inadequate salaries and have to look to directorships in private industry as their reward when they leave office? While no one doubts the integrity of present Ministers, is this not a constitutionally unhealthy situation, as Ministers frequently have to make decisions weighing the interests of private industry and the public?

Mr. Amory: It is issues of that kind which arise when one takes on some appointment, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the thing works the other way. While I would not go so far as to describe the life of Ministers in the words Hobbes used of life—
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"—
there are many cases in which appointees to Ministerial posts accept cuts in emoluments when they accept office, as well as when they leave it.

Mr. John Hall: As I was told that to get the same emoluments after tax to. equal the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1938 my right hon. Friend would need £70,000 a year, will he consider increasing the salaries of Ministers?

Mr. Amory: Yes, but I doubt whether I would go quite as far as my hon. Friend suggests.

Government Securities

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which the Bank of England took action which resulted in a sudden depression in the value of Government securities on 24th February.

Mr. Amory: The fall in the prices of Government securities on 24th February was primarily attributable to the action of those holders who decided on or about that date to make very substantial sales and was of course a natural consequence of such decisions. The Government do not believe that the market ought to be insulated by official action from the effects of decisions by holders of gilt-edged stock to buy or sell, though at times it may be desirable to assist in maintaining orderly market conditions. I am entirely content with the course adopted by the Bank of England in allowing the weight of selling on that occasion to be reflected in a fall in market prices.

Mr. Cronin: If, as appears to have been the ostensible purpose, this withdrawal of Bank of England support was to limit bank advances, why did not the right hon. Gentleman use other of the several methods at his disposal—a direct request to the banks, or the powers given to him under the Bank of England Act, or the power to withdraw special deposits from the banks?

Mr. Amory: I think that the hon. Member has not quite got this matter in perspective. It was not a withdrawal of support, but only to a support at some lower prices. Support was not completely withdrawn.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Chancellor trying to tell us that the Bank of England behaved in a purely neutral manner on this occasion and showed a behaviour in no way accounted for by a desire slightly to tighten the credit mechanism?

Mr. Amory: The position, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that when stock is quoted in rather unusual quantities the authorities very often ease the

transition in prices by some support. In this case there was a quite exceptional weight of sales and the extent to which, at any rate the point at which, they supported the market was a rather greater differential than usual. But their practice would depend on the volume of stock which was hanging over the market. It would be quite unreasonable to expect the authorities to buy stock regardless of quantity.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my hon. Friend's question about the intentions of the Bank in this matter? Was it intended to tighten credit or not?

Mr. Amory: It was in line with the Bank's normal practice, except that the amount of stock offered, on top of what the Bank had already bought, was quite exceptional and unusual and, therefore, the differential was larger than usual. It is that rather than any sharp change in policy.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that those with small fixed incomes from securities of this sort are badly affected? Will he not agree that they are not likely to be able to invest in equity shares?

Mr. Amory: I will, of course. I am always sorry when holders of Government stocks suffer loss. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Sir C. Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend say why there was this abnormal weight of sales at this time? Had the abnormality anything to do with the decisions of the Bank of England?

Mr. Amory: I think that the rather exceptionally large volume of stock offered for sale was due to sales by the banks in order to improve their liquidity in view of the growing demands on them for advances.

Railways (Tax)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums have accrued to Her Majesty's Government from taxation, duty levy, or any other charges from the railway undertaking since January, 1948, up to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Amory: It would be contrary to practice to disclose information about the tax affairs of a particular concern, but if the hon. Member consults the Annual Accounts of the British Transport Commission he will see that it has so far not been liable to Income or Profits Tax.

Pensioners

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will appoint a committee, on the pattern of the Guillebaud Committee, to advise whether pensions and superannuation, in respect of individuals for whom Her Majesty's Government have responsibility, are fair in relation to salaries and wages of today.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir, for the cogent reasons advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Solicitor-General during the proceedings on the Pensions (Increase) Bill on 26th June last year.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend explain why it is that we are always able to examine the position of people in work but never able to examine the position of people who have retired? Can he say whether in the examination of the Guillebaud Committee's recommendations about railway wages, the position of railway superan-nuitants will be studied, since it was impossible to apply the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959, to them, which was rather bad luck on decent railwaymen who had retired?

Mr. Amory: In general, the point is that the Pensions (Increase) Act applied to the Government's own retired employees for whom the Government had a direct responsibility. In that case, responsibility must rest on the Government and the Government are in a position to obtain the facts. If my hon. Friend requires information about railway annuitants, perhaps she will put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Dame Irene Ward: I have.

Middle East Airlines (Comet Aircraft)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has given his approval to the guarantees given by British Overseas Airways Corporation in

respect of the instalment payments on the purchase of five Comet airliners by Middle East Airlines.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation.

Mr. Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the accusation by the chairman of the Middle East Airlines that there had been an inordinate delay by the Treasury in giving a reply and that it was necessary to give the Treasury a week's ultimatum before any answer could be obtained?

Mr. Amory: I noticed the observation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I think that there was no avoidable delay in this case. It was not a straightforward case of credit insurance, but a highly complicated intricate case, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I looked into the circumstances and I am satisfied that there was no avoidable delay.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend say why this and a similar order by Olympic Airways were not dealt with by the Export Credit Guarantees Department? If there was good reason, will he publish details of the deals so that we may know on what terms nationalised industries are lending millions of public money?

Mr. Amory: This was a matter in which the guarantee of B.O.A.C. was involved. If my hon. Friend requires more information, I ask him to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation.

PRESIDENT DE GAULLE (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent official talks with President de Gaulle.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir. As I told the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) on 10th March, the visit was a private one and no statement or communiqué was issued.

Mr. Healey: Can the Prime Minister tell the House, first, whether he had any


discussions on the situation created by the determination of the French Government to persist in testing atomic weapons in defiance of a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly; and, secondly, whether he took the opportunity of expressing to the French President the profound disquiet that is widely felt in this country at the reported decision of the President to seek a purely military solution of the Algerian problem?

The Prime Minister: If I were to go into detail, I would be doing exactly what I said I would not do.

Mr. S. Silverman: When the Prime Minister says that this was a private visit, is he intending to imply that he did not go there as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: It was not one of those conferences at which it is common to issue communiqués. Naturally, we had considerable discussion over a large number of subjects and I think that this is a valuable practice.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) correct in saying that President de Gaulle is seeking a purely military solution in Algeria?

The Prime Minister: I did not wish to get drawn into the details, because I should then be issuing the communiqué.

DISARMAMENT

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made to co-ordinate the policies of the Defence and Service Departments with those of the Foreign Office in relation to disarmament.

The Prime Minister: It is not customary to publish details of the machinery for consultation between Ministers or their Departments.

Mr. Warbey: In view of the great importance of the disarmament conference which is opening today, can the Prime Minister give an assurance that the British Pentagon will be kept in its place and that Service chiefs and military leaders will not be allowed to sabotage the possibility of a disarmament agree-

ment by fighting for the retention of particular weapons or seeking to maintain a mythical balance of power, as they did between 1932 and 1934?

The Prime Minister: That suggestion is quite unworthy. The Service chiefs give us their advice and the Government make their decision. In this case, however, we have not only been able to co-ordinate between the Defence and Service Departments, but, I am happy to say, we have been able to gat a co-ordinated plan between the five Western Governments.

ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the 70 Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry appointed since January, 1955, have, in all cases, reported with that expedition demanded by the importance of the subject of inquiry undertaken; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will realise that almost all these Committees were set up by, and reported to, the Minister directly concerned with the subject matter of the inquiry. If he has any doubts about specific inquiries, perhaps he will put down a Question to the appropriate Minister.
As a general statement, I would say that speed of reporting cannot be the only criterion. The most important subjects are often the most complex, requiring the most detailed investigation. It is often necessary to take evidence from many sources, and persons and institutions must be given proper time in which to prepare their evidence. The essential point is that the report, when it is produced, should be thorough and complete. It is also relevant that for all these inquiries we rely very largely on public-spirited individuals who are prepared to give up their time to this work.
Taking all these considerations into account, I should certainly not wish to criticise any of these Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry for failing to produce their report in good time.

Dr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one or two of these inquiries


have taken more than three years, whereas the Committee of Inquiry on Administrative Tribunals, an extremely complex matter, reported in less than eighteen months? While accepting my right hon. Friend's remarks, I am wondering whether he would accept the suggestion put forward in due humility from the member of another university from his own that he might, perhaps, make further use of the services of Sir Oliver Franks.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. He certainly will have time and it would be very agreeable. He did a very good job at that inquiry. A long written list has been issued giving the periods taken by Committees of Inquiry and when they have reported. On the whole, it shows what a tremendous effort is given to this work by those who are good enough to serve.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Northern Ireland

Captain Orr: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 30th March, I shall call attention to Northern Ireland, and move a Resolution.

School-Leaving Age

Dr. King: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 30th March, I shall call attention to the need to raise the school-leaving age, and move a Resolution.

Street and Road Works

Captain Pilkington: I beg to give notice that on Wednesday, 30th March, I shall call attention to the question of street and road works, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

OIL BURNERS (STANDARDS)

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for minimum standards of efficiency and safety in respect of oil-burning appliances; and for purposes connected therewith.
Mass production of labour-saving devices and appliances for the home, notably smokeless fuel appliances including millions of electric and oil space heaters, has created special problems in the realm of safety. The whole House will have been gravely concerned in the last few weeks about a series of hideous accidents which have occurred in various parts of the country in connection with oil heaters, most of which have been of the domestic and portable type.
There are in this country today no fewer than 12 million domestic and portable oil heaters in regular use. Of that 12 million, about 9 million are of the safer convector type and about 3 million are of the drip-feed radiant type with which, we are led to believe, special hazards are associated.
The record of accidents is very grave indeed. For example, it is recorded that in 1956 there were 1,202 fires in homes in this country caused by these domestic oil heaters. In 1958, the last year for which figures are available, the number had risen to 4,464 such fires. Out of that large total no fewer than 23 per cent. were accounted for by these oil heaters flaring or becoming overheated.
As a result of special tests which have been conducted it has now been established that many of these oil heaters which are on the market today, when subject to a very slight draught, will go up into a sheet of flame several feet high, and that the draught concerned causes not only a flaring of the oil burner upwards, but, which is much more hazardous and dangerous, causes a flaring of the burner sideways or even downwards, so that a fire in an ordinary room becomes nearly inescapable.
There has been confusion in the matter of methods to be adopted for dealing with fires of this kind, but what is indisputable today is that there is a huge number of these heaters in use. In certain circumstances they are very dangerous and I


think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join with me in saying that we should examine, at an early date, prospects for establishing reasonable safe standards of oil appliances sold in future.
The hazards associated with these oil heaters may briefly be divided under three headings: first, there is the hazard of draughts; secondly, there is the hazard of overheating and flaring; thirdly, there is the hazard of a fault developing in the injection of the fuel supply. I will deal very briefly with these three headings, in what I hope will be an introductory speech on this topic.
In the matter of draught, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has said that it has tested no fewer than 35 different types of portable domestic drip-feed type radiant heaters and that in 32 cases a draught at the rate of only 3·3 m.p.h. caused the burner of the appliance to flare. A speed of 3·3 m.p.h. is slower than the speed at which I walk through the Lobby, which I calculate to be at a rate of 4 m.p.h. It needs only the slightest draught to cause a conflagration.
The special hazard in connection with overheating and flaring, of course, is that in many of these drip-feed radiant type heaters the fuel flask which may contain paraffin or kerosene is set below the level of the burner, which creates every kind of atmospheric hazard and one which certainly was not realised until several hideous accidents occurred during the last year or two.
I need not dwell on the third hazard. Wherever there is a drip-feed injection type of fuel supply to an appliance there is a very real danger, especially in domestic surroundings, that it will go wrong and what has been happening is that the fuel supply has often gone wrong. Paraffin has been splashed over a wide area and a fire immediately results.
Those are three of the hazards. They are largely avoidable by proper standards of design, construction, and implementation of them in the manufacture of these oil appliances and I believe that the House ought to specify reasonable minimum standards of efficiency and safety for these appliances.
I do not wish to relate the horrible results of accidents, but it is pertinent

to reinforce my case by reference to just two. On 13th November last, at Ware, in Hertfordshire, five small children were asphyxiated and burnt to death within a matter of minutes of their parent leaving a room with an oil burner set in the middle of the floor, opening the door of the room, opening the front door of the house to go and buy groceries, crossing the road and going only a few yards away. The sudden draught which swept through the front door into the inner room caused an instantaneous fire and the death of those five children.
The coroner at Ware, who conducted a detailed inquest with a jury empanelled, is to be congratulated on the thoroughness with which he dealt with this problem and his demand that the findings should be sent to the D.S.I.R., which is the cause of the train of investigations that have followed.
The second accident happened, sadly, only a matter of ten days ago, in Nottingham, where a Jamaican left the room with an oil burner set in the middle of it, fetched a new canister of fuel and evidently sought to refill the appliance while the burner was alight. The appliance caught fire at once and, notwithstanding the aid of an adult relative, it could not be removed from the room and the fire extinguished before two small children, aged two years and twelve months respectively, had been severely burned. Within 48 hours the child aged twelve months died in hospital, and the second child is still critically ill.
We cannot legislate for the utterly stupid—for people who carry a lighted domestic oil stove from one room to another down a draughty corridor, or try to fill an oil appliance while it is still lighted—but we can try to fix reasonable standards of design, construction and safety.
I wish, in this connection, to point out the exact statutory position today. As long ago as 10th December last I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether he would introduce legislation for this purpose. At that time he admitted that he possessed no statutory powers. On 7th March of this year, after he had received a report from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and his own fire advisers, he made a statement in the House, and I


wish to quote a few words from that statement. He said:
The main conclusion is that these heaters are safe in a house with the outer doors and windows closed, but that all the heaters of this type tested are capable of starting a fire very quickly if exposed to a draught such as can be caused by an open outer door.
I immediately asked my right hon. Friend a supplementary question, in which I said:
Does not my right hon. Friend recall that, last December, 1 questioned him as to what powers he had within existing statutes to specify a minimum standard of proficiency and safety for these very dangerous oil heaters and he replied that he had no such power? Would he not agree that it is wholly insufficient to rely on optional British standards of minimum proficiency and safety and that he should legislate to give the appropriate Minister powers to require these safety standards for all new appliances from a very early date?
My right hon. Friend replied:
Yes, Sir. That may well be a necessity. The question of taking legal powers must follow upon the immediate consultations which my Department is undertaking."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1960; Vol. 619, c. 34–6.]
Those consultations have now been completed. Agreement has been reached on practically every point as between the D.S.I.R. and all the technical advisers. I therefore seek leave to bring in the Bill today, at the earliest possible moment, sure in the knowledge that even with full support from both sides of the House and the Treasury Bench it will take several months for the Bill to reach the Statute Book. I emphasise that it is an enabling Measure, designed to give my right hon. Friend the requisite powers in this context, and to enable him to frame regulations under those powers which will be in a form that may be

prayed against in both Houses of Parliament if it is felt so desirable.
In conclusion, I would say that there may be hon. Members who prefer not to rely upon legislation, and who say, "Take the British Standards and rely on the manufacturers." I am a manufacturer, and I do not wish to impugn any of my fellow manufacturers, but I would remind every hon. Member who is listening to me today that it is wholly insufficient to rely on British Standards, because these domestic oil heaters are now being imported, and may well be imported in larger quantities, from, say, Japan, or Sweden or West Germany. How can we control their foreign standards?
In such circumstances I confidently appeal for the support of the Whole House. I am supported in my endeavours today by five of my Conservative colleagues—making a total of six Conservatives—five Socialists, and one Liberal. That is a total of 12 Members drawn from all parties in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nabarro, Mr. Doughty, Mr. Snow, Mr. Bullard, Mr. Blyton, Lady Tweedsmuir, Mr. Dodds, Lieut.-Commander Maydon, Mr. Randall, Mr. Beresford Craddock, Mr. Jack Jones, and Mr. Thorpe

OIL BURNERS (STANDARDS)

Bill to make provision for minimum standards of efficiency and safety in respect of oil-burning appliances; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 1st April and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]

REPORT [14th March]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1959–60; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1960–61; ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATES, 1960–61; ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1960–61; CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1959–60; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1959–60

CLASS II

VOTE 5. COMMONWEALTH SERVICES

1. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for sundry Commonwealth services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and certain grants in aid; the salaries and expenses of Pensions Appeal Tribunals in the Republic of Ireland; a grant to the Republic of Ireland in respect of compensation to transferred officers; and certain expenditure in connection with former Burma services.

VOTE 5. COMMONWEALTH SERVICES

2. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for sundry Commonwealth services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and certain grants in aid; the salaries and expenses of Pensions Appeal Tribunals in the Republic of Ireland; a grant to the Republic of Ireland in respect of compensation to transferred officers; and certain expenditure in connection with former Burma services.

VOTE 8. COLONIAL SERVICES

3. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment

during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for sundry Colonial Services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and grants in aid; certain expenditure in connection with the liabilities of the former Government of Palestine; certain expenditure in connection with and grants in aid to Cyprus; and certain non-effective services.

VOTE 8. COLONIAL SERVICES

4. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for sundry Colonial services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and grants in aid; certain expenditure in connection with the liabilities of the former Government of Palestine; certain expenditure in connection with and grants in aid to Cyprus; and certain non-effective services.

VOTE 9. DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE (COLONIES, ETC.)

5. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,400,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960. in respect of schemes made under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act for the development of the resources of colonies, protectorates, protected states and trust territories, and the welfare of their peoples.

VOTE 10. DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE (FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND, AND SOUTH AFRICAN HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES)

6. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £108,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, in respect of schemes made under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act for the development of the resources of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and of the South African High Commission Territories, and the welfare of their peoples.

CLASS VIII

VOTE 2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES

7. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,280,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; for payments and services in implementation of agricultural price guarantees; and for certain other services including a payment to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland.

CLASS VI

VOTE 2. BOARD OF TRADE (ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY AND TRADING SERVICES)

8. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,002,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the expenditure of the Board of Trade on assistance and subsidies to certain industries, and on trading and other services; subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.

CLASS V

VOTE 5. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, ENGLAND AND WALES

9. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £23,586,640, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the provision of national health services for England and

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959-60

11. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.

Schedule




Sums not exceeding




Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote

£
£


1.
Pay, etc., of the Army
4,640,000
*—700,000


2.
Reserve Forces, Territorial Army, Home Guard and Cadet Forces
1,160,000
* —80,000


3.
Salaries, wages, etc
330,000
 —


4.
Civilians
760,000
* —140,000


5.
Movements
70,000
700,000


6.
Supplies, etc
240,000
* —270,000


7.
Stores
Cr. 3,500,000
 —


8.
Works, Buildings and Lands
Cr. 1,570,000
 —


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
300,000
 —


10.
Non-Effective Services
1,570,000
30,000


11.
Additional Married Quarters
 —
* —460,000



Total, Army (Supplementary) 1959–60
£4,000,000
* —£920,000


* Deficit.

ARMY

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATE, 1960–61

12. That a sum, not exceeding £7,400,000, be granted to Her Majesty, for the expenses of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.

Wales and other services connected therewith, including payments to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. medical services for pensioners etc., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements including certain grants in aid, the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, etc., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1960–61

10. That a sum, not exceeding £39,990,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for expenditure in respect of Army Services, viz.:—

Vote


£


10.
Non-Effective Services
…
39,990,000


11. 
Additional Married Quarters
…
100


£39,990,100

ARMY

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

13. That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided for the expenses of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories.

ARMY

WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1960–61

14. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, for expenditure incurred by the War Office on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service, and on miscellaneous supply, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1959–60

15. hat a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £44,633,732, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES

CLASS I




£


1.
House of Lords
15,182


4.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
192,500


6.
Charity Commission
8,482


7.
Civil Service Commission
47,092


8.
Crown Estate Office
8,049


10.
Friendly Societies Registry
10,615


11.
Government Actuary
10


15.
National Debt Office
10


17.
Public Record Office
10


21.
Tithe Redemption Commission
10


22B.
Civil Service Remuneration
1,558,600


24.
Scottish Record Office
10


CLASS II


1.
Foreign Service
525,285


2.
Foreign Office Grants and Services
788,900


4.
Commonwealth Relations Office
10


6.
Oversea Settlement
10


7.
Colonial Office
73,000


CLASS III


1.
Home Office
174,370


3.
Police, England and Wales
902,024


4.
Prisons, England and Wales
10


8.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc
45,640


9.
County Courts
469,847


11.
Land Registry
10


12.
Public Trustee
10


13.
Law Charges
35,300


14.
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
4,000


21.
Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland
45,188


22.
Department of the Registers of Scotland
10


23.
 Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.. Northern Ireland
12,773



CLASS IV




£


1.
Ministry of Education
10


4.
Imperial War Museum
500


5.
London Museum
2,893


6.
National Gallery 
157,975


7.
Tate Gallery
12,238


8.
National Maritime Museum
1,297


9.
National Portrait Gallery 
1,600


10.
Wallace Collection
3,517


11.
Grants for Science and the Arts
10


12.
Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain
600,000


13.
Broadcasting
952,000


17.
National Library, Scotland
20,000


CLASS V


3.
Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
8,030,000


4.
Ministry of Health
322,530


6.
Medical Research Council 
43,970


7.
Registrar General's Office 
1,940


8.
War Damage Commission
28,550


9.
Department of Health for Scotland 
158,125


10.
National Health Service, Scotland
2,032,400


12.
Exchequer Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland 
 941,000


13.
Registrar General's Office, Scotland
3,500


CLASS VI


1.
Board of Trade
430,000


3.
Board of Trade (Former Strategic Stocks)
10


4.
Services in Development Areas
10


9.
Ministry of Labour 
854,000


CLASS VII


1.
Ministry of Works
10


3.
Public Buildings, etc., United Kingdom
10


4.
Public Buildings Overseas
10


7.
Historic Buldings and Ancient Monuments
32,000


CLASS VIII


1.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
545,000


3.
Agricultural and Food Services
4,918,480


5.
Fishery Grants and Services
3,689,000


10.
Forestry Commission
32,000


12.
Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry
73,050


CLASS IX


1.
Ministry of Transport
434,300


3.
Transport (Shipping and Special Services
124,000


6A.
Office of the Minister for Science
8,000


7. 
Atomic Energy
10

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

16. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, will be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

3.46 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, to leave out "£10" and insert "£5".
I want to make it clear at the outset that, in moving this reduction, I have no desire to leave one of the Monckton Commissioners stranded beyond the flood waters in the summer palace of the Paramount Chief of Barotseland, although those of us who have experienced the hospitality of the Paramount Chief—including the Minister of Power, who is present, and my right hon. Friend—would not feel that it would be too hard a fate if Parliament, in its wisdom, decided that he should be left there because there were not sufficient funds to bring him home. But, in the long run, we think that we should be right in allowing the Government to dispatch a money order, or whatever is

appropriate, to bring him back from beyond the flood waters.
At a time when events are moving so rapidly in Africa, we should give some consideration to what effect those events will have on the Monckton Commission. The purposes of that Commission were as set out by the Prime Minister in the Motion which he commended to the House some time ago, namely,
to advise the five Governments, in preparation for the 1960 review, on the constitutional programme and framework best suited to the achievement of the objects contained in the Constitution of 1953. including the Preamble.
There is no doubt that since the Prime Minister announced these terms of reference in the House, on 21st July last year, there have been many rapid changes on the continent of Africa. The tremendous decision by the Belgian Government to set free the Belgian Congo is bound to have its effects upon the work of the Monckton Commission.
We understand that it has already resulted in an approach being made to the Federal Prime Minister by certain interests in one of the Provinces of the Belgian Congo to link up with the Federation itself. How far these approaches will be taken we do not know, nor do we know how far they represent the wishes of the people in the Belgian Congo. But it is clear that this decision is bound to have a tremendous reaction throughout Africa. We would all wish well those Africans in the Belgian Congo who will soon be launched upon the most tremendous experiment ever conducted in the territory.
The second event that has undoubtedly influenced the work of the Monckton Commission is the Prime Minister's visit to Africa. [Interruption.] I do not know what the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is muttering about. Fortunately, the noble Lord does not have to decide whether something is in order or not. I realise that he has an Amendment on the Order Paper, and that no doubt he wants to get to it, although I doubt very much if he will do anything about it when he gets there, if previous experience is any guide. He and his supporters are just like a lot of chocolate soldiers. They think that they have got


hard centres until the Tory Whips appear, and then they find that the filling is just marzipan.

Mr. Speaker: I suspect that that is enough outside the scope of this Vote.

Mr. Callaghan: Even so, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you would agree that I have been provoked for the past two minutes by mutterings from the Front Bench below the Gangway.
The Prime Minister's visit to Africa and his speeches both in Lagos and Salisbury have undoubtedly had a good deal of influence on the work of the Monckton Commission and the terms of reference with which it is charged, and, even more recently, in lands contiguous to these territories, an agreement, which we welcome, has been come to on the question of the future of Kenya. We believe that that is fraught with hope for the future, too.
To go back to the question of the Monckton Commission and its terms of reference, they have been outpaced, as we see it, by the course of events today. All the events I have described have meant that what might have been— although we did not think so—arguable as being a worth-while task last July is really no longer worth while, unless the Monckton Commission is ready to take a much wider view of the task that has been set it by the terms of reference which we have been asked to agree, and for which this money is being expended.
We think that it is not only events outside the territories of the Central African Federation which have outpaced and outdated the Monckton Commission, but statements made inside the territory of the Central African Federation. We think that we know where the Prime Minister stands now, as a result of his speeches in Lagos and Salisbury. We are not quite certain. One journalist rather unfairly described him as being at his most evasive and ambiguous best when speaking about the Federation. But we think that we have got it fairly well tied down.
As we understand the Government's attitude in regard to the terms of reference, it is that the three territories making up the Federation may not break up. None of them may secede. That is why the terms of reference say that the purpose of the Monckton Commission is to

review the constitutional programme and the framework best suited to the achievement of the objects contained in the Constitution of 1953. The Prime Minister seems clear about that. What he also seems clear about, from his speech in Lagos, especially, is that the three territories may not go forward to full independence until all three of them, and the peoples of all three, are ready so to do.
In these circumstances, I think that all of us can understand that the people in Southern Rhodesia, especially, who were very close to Dominion status, feel that they have been robbed by this curb that has been placed upon them, because there is little doubt, I suppose, that this Constitution, which is now being reviewed, might mean that they would be unable to get full Dominion status. There is equally little doubt from what the Prime Minister has said that they must wait for Dominion status until the two Northern Territories express an opinion that their people are ready to go ahead with them to full Dominion status.
We know from the events of the past that, so far from their being anxious to go forward with Southern Rhodesia to attain full Dominion status, it really was quite different. A majority of the people —not a majority of the votes, but a majority of the people—wish to break up the Federation. They do not wish to be associated with it at all. We have been told by the Prime Minister that it is not the view of the Government that the Federation should be broken up; at any rate, not as far as the Northern Territories are concerned. But how do we explain what Sir Edgar Whitehead said in connection with the Monckton Commission? His views are that, in certain circumstances, Southern Rhodesia will have to reconsider her position in the Federation. He lays down these conditions. Some of them do not—

Mr. John Eden: On a point of order. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you could give us some guidance as to the scope of this debate, and whether we can talk about the policies or likely policies of the Government in future, or whether we are restricted and strictly limited to the discussion of certain specific Estimates for 1959–60 which we have before us this afternoon. If there could be any guidance as to how


far this debate can range, and the subjects which are permissible and not permissible, I think that it will be of very great help to all the other hon. Members who propose to take up some of the points which the hon. Gentleman is now putting forward.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I make a further submission to you, Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, on three grounds? The sum to which the hon. Gentleman referred —£40,000—is but a tithe of the total Supplementary Estimate, and if the Supplementary Estimate is to be debated, and the Vote has been tabled, the debate ought to range widely over those larger items such as Subheads S.3 and U, relating to the Federation of Malaya and Basutoland, and all those other matters besides the Monckton Commission. That is the first ground of my submission.
My second submission is this. If it is to be allowed on this particular item of £40,000 it should be strictly related to the use to which that sum is to be put, that is to say, the travelling expenses of the Commission, the costs of the attendance of witnesses, and the entertainment allowances which the Monckton Commission will have to undertake or discharge, the things of that kind.
Thirdly, I should like to make the submission that the hon. Member is out of order on the ground that he is enlarging on the higher policies connected with the work of the Monckton Commission, which would be the subject of debate on a special Motion, if that were put down, and that this is very narrowly confined to the expenses of the Commission.

Mr. Callaghan: May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that I am only asking satisfaction from the Government, because they are asking the House to justify the expenditure of £40,000 on the Monckton Commission. I am questioning whether, in fact, the pace of events in Africa has not made the work of that Commission less useful than it would otherwise be, and that, in fact, the terms of reference of the Commission should be much wider to guard against that. That does not need a change of policy, but only a change in the terms of reference.

Mr. Speaker: I take the view that, this being the first occasion on which

the Monckton Commission arises in connection with a Vote, I cannot stop the House discussing the whole question of policy underlying the Monckton Commission in this debate. What the noble Lord was submitting to me about the right of the House to debate the whole field in that connection is also true. The Chair has no power to stop it.

Mr. Eden: May I take up a further point on that point of order? Would it not have been possible to have called Amendments to reduce the Vote on specific subheads in order to restrict the debate to those subheads? If that cannot be done, how is it possible to restrict the debate to one particular subhead in the Vote?

Mr. Speaker: The House cannot do that on Report, as the hon. Member will appreciate, because we are considering the whole sum reported in the Resolution.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that the Government Front Bench have much to worry—

Mr. Eden: They have not.

Mr. Callaghan: —when the rebels have to appeal to be taught how to use their arms. If they really want to rebel, they should take a few lessons before they come here.

Mr. Eden: What? From the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)?

Mr. Callaghan: The difference is that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) carries his to a logical conclusion, whereas the hon. Gentleman opposite will not do anything anywhere. I do not consider that he will dare to vote—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get back to this particular matter. Wide as the discussion may be, it really cannot comprise these delightful matters to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Callaghan: I agree. There is such a call on rebels; that is the only difficulty.
I was about to say, if I may now be allowed to continue—hon. Gentlemen opposite may leave the Chamber if they wish—that the real issue with which we are faced is that Sir Edgar Whitehead has himself


laid down certain conditions in which he thinks it would be necessary for the Southern Rhodesian people to secede from the Federation.
If the Monekton Commission may not consider this question at all—and we understand from the pronouncement of the Prime Minister of the Federation and our own Prime Minister that it is not allowed to do so—how is it possible— because the Federation is there to stay— for one of the territories to state a number of conditions on which it is willing to remain in?
If it is possible for Southern Rhodesia to do that, equally it must be possible for Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia to do the same. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I do not see how it is possible to have this both ways. Either all the territories remain in, and must remain in, or all the territories are free to contract out.
Speaking for myself—and now I am referring to the technical matter and not to the merits—it seems to me quite clear that Sir Edgar Whitehead has spoken the truth, that, whatever legal forms may contain these three territories at the moment, those forms will be sustained only so long as they have the assent of the people. As we have seen before with written constitutions, they can be unwritten as quickly as they are written, and unless the federal machine can secure the support of all the territories whatever may be written in the constitution can be as easily unwritten.
I believe that we were right when we said before, and that we are right today, that if we are to spend this £40,000 properly and expeditiously, if all the witnesses coming before the Commission are to spend their time in a worth-while way and all the expenses are to be paid, it would be far more useful and worth while for the work of the Commission to include discussions on other forms of association between the territories. At one stage we thought that the Prime Minister was coming a little nearer to us when, on 24th November, he said:
I want to make it clear, as I tried to say, that the Commission can, of course, hear any evidence of any kind on any subject. The right hon. Gentleman"—
that is, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—

says, 'can it consider other forms of association?' I would have thought that the phrase which I tried to interpret in the terms of reference"—
and then the right hon. Gentleman quoted—
 'considered the whole field of redistribution of powers in either direction' is a pretty wide one and really covers the point at issue, other forms of association being covered by those 'powers' whether greater, or changed, or smaller, which really do affect the answer."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 213.]
It was possible from that to assume that the Prime Minister was endeavouring to convince us that it could consider other forms of association. But we now know from the later comments of the right hon. Gentleman, and from the views expressed by the Federal Prime Minister, that, whatever the view of the Prime Minister himself, the Federal Prime Minister would not have agreed to this Commission going to Africa had he thought it was free to consider the break-up of the Federation or any alternative form of association.
The remarkable thing is that some of the newer members of the Commission advocated precisely this; at least one did, Mr. Wellington Chirwa, from Nyasaland, who has recently been appointed to the Commission. On 25th January, after conferring with the Colonial Secretary, he declared that the nearer the Federation was to break-up the better it would be. He suggested that the terms of reference should be changed to allow the Commission to advocate secession for Nyasaland.
Equally, Lord Shawcross, another nominee of the Government to the Commission. I see that he is described in the Central African Press as a Socialist and it is suggested that the reason he adopted the position he did was that, of course, the Socialists had to appeal to the groundlings. That is rather unfair to Lord Shawcross. We know very well that it is something the Prime Minister himself would never dream of doing. The Federation Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Northern Rhodesia both protested about the remarks of Lord Shawcross about the Monekton Commission in a B.B.C. television programme— that he would not hesitate to recommend the abolition of the Federation if he was convinced that it was the wish of the majority of Africans.
On 14th January, Sir Roy Welensky and Sir Edgar Whitehead found it deplorable that Lord Shawcross, a member of the Commission, should have seen fit to publicise his views on the Commission's work before its sittings had begun and should have done so in a manner which seemed to them at so complete variance with the terms of reference.
How right we were in this matter. This question has dogged the Monckton Commission ever since it set out. We asked for a clear answer to this question before the Commission set out, and before we took up a position, because we were anxious to participate if the answer was clear. We asked for a clear answer to the question: would the Commission be allowed to consider other forms of association? At first, the answer was, "Well, we are not sure." Then the answer was, "No, certainly not." Sir Roy Welensky has always been certain that the answer was,"No, certainly not", and now all the time, individual members, and the Commission itself, are being pressed by this question.
In our view, the spending of £40,000 on this Commission to do this job is a case of spending money unnecessarily when we know what the answer will be before the Commission reports. The Commission could have done a really good job, in my view, had it been allowed to consider the possibility of these other forms of association between the territories. The simple truth is— this is what I think that we as a House must face—that if the Government are asking us to give them this Vote they are in a dilemma, because their policy in Kenya, Somaliland and in other territories in Africa is to ensure that the Africans themselves are free to take over the Government of their country as soon as they can.
I am not saying that this is wrong. On the whole, I think that it is right, although I am bound to say, also, that I think that it is also fraught with dangers. But these are dangers which we ought to face. Indeed, we cannot avoid them. Regarding the Rhodesias, we are in a different position. Sir Edgar Whitehead and most of the Europeans in the Federation have made clear— certainly in Southern Rhodesia—that if the two Northern Territories, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, secure African

Governments on the lines of Governments of other territories they will secede from the Federation.
What is Her Majesty's Government to do? Here is their dilemma. It seems to me that the Government have got themselves into a position where either they will have to break faith with the Africans to whom they have pledged themselves, or they will have to break faith with the Europeans who believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Federation was set up to protect them against exactly this sort of happening. I think that here the real difficulty goes back to the decision in 1953 to establish the Federation against the will of the Africans.
In Africa itself, the Government's policy seems to show signs of lapsing into sanity. We are glad that this should be so. But I beg the Government not to allow this lapse to be overtaken by Sir Roy Welensky's difficulties with the Europeans in Central Africa. I wish to say to the Government, and to the Europeans living in those territories, that so long as they insist that those territories must remain linked together in their present form, so long will the attention of Africans be focussed upon that to the exclusion of other problems which in many ways are more important. The economic problems of Central Africa, particularly of Nyasaland, the educational problems, all these need a solution. But attention is diverted from them. Now it is focussed—it is bound to be focussed—on this political issue the whole time, because the Government still insist on sticking to it.
I know that the intention is, and it has been said, that this territory shall remain a Central African Federation, that it shall be a bastion against the onrush of African nationalism from the North. It has been more recently stated by Sir Edgar Whitehead that it is also to be a bastion against the onrush of European nationalism from the South. Those, I think, are in many ways worthy objectives. I would most dearly love to see a federation or an association between these territories in which black and white were living together freely and harmoniously because they believed that it was in the interest of all the people in these territories that they should do so.
If we are to achieve this end, as I should love to see it achieved for the sake of the Africans and of the Europeans in these territories, we cannot go on, as the Monckton Commission has been charged to do, with the present policy of saying, "We shall ignore the overwhelming weight of African opinion about the form of association, or whether there should be any association at all." It may seem strange, coming from me, but I believe that there are certain elements in the Federal Government, from which I would not exclude the Federal Prime Minister, who genuinely would like to see a partnership. I think it possible that he would, but at the moment he is at the mercy of many of his own supporters and unable to move in the direction in which he would like to move.
In those circumstances, whatever may be the feelings of Her Majesty's Government, they ought to give a lead on this issue. The best lead they could give would be to say to the Monckton Commission, "You are free to consider any form of association you think appropriate in the circumstances you find. You are free to make any recommendations about whether it is possible to hold these territories together or not. We give you responsibility to review the whole situation."
If the Government did that, I believe that this £40,000 would be well spent, but, as they are not doing that, we on this side of the House come to the conclusion that however worthy the motives of the Commission, and however able its members may be, we fear that they will not come back with any solution which is likely to commend itself—as they are supposed to do—to the great majority of the people in those territories.
Of course, we do not oppose the spending of the money—as I have said, we should not like to have one Commissioner left out there—but we do not think that the Commission is likely to advance the solution of the problems. The Government themselves will have to take decisions on this matter, come out of their masterly and ambiguous evasiveness—to use the words of newspaper correspondents—and recognise that we cannot chain people eternally to a legal form. Some day they will break

loose if we do not free them from their chains beforehand.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Humphry Berkeley: The trepidation which I would normally feel in addressing the House for the first time is increased to a feeling of positive terror in view of the many points of order which were raised by some of my hon. Friends a few moments ago. I hope, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that I may ask not only for your special indulgence, but perhaps even for their special indulgence, to help me through this very difficult phase.
The first point I wish to make about the Monckton Commission is one which I have not seen generally commented upon. It is that in the various comments, spoken and otherwise, about the composition of the Monckton Commission I do not feel that sufficient general acknowledgment has been given to the Government for, in my view, their imaginative appointment of Sir Charles Arden Clarke as a member of that Commission. I have been fortunate enough to travel reasonably frequently to West Africa. I can testify, as anybody who has been much in Ghana can, to the complete affection for him from the people in Ghana and the confidence in him of the people of West Africa.
When one bears in mind that he was responsible for summoning Dr. Nkrumah from prison to the office of Chief Minister, one can take it for granted that he will not be afraid of any unorthodox recommendations in his participation in the work of the Commission. I believe the appointment of men such as he to this Commission will mean that it will carry a great deal more weight, as it should, among African opinion than otherwise it would have done.
Those of us who, from time to time, have visited different parts of the African continent—and no one knows more than I do how difficult it is to generalise about that continent—must be deeply conscious of one characteristic which has pervaded every part of Africa to which I have been. That is the intense preoccupation of the African with symbols and with words. We see it in West Africa in the obsession with the need to get a new constitution and in Central Africa with the obsession over the word


"federation". There is no doubt whatever in my mind that this word "federation" in Central Africa has done a great deal to destroy the confidence of the ordinary African in the future development of that territory. Whether or not some form of association can be maintained and the actual word "federation" dropped, I do not know, but I am sure that the Government and the Commission will be aware of the very real importance which Africans attach to actual words.
Similarly, because they attach an importance to symbols and because Africans in the Northern Territories see Salisbury as the Federal capital, they tend to think that federation and partnership mean what happens at Salisbury at the present time. Any of us who has been to Salisbury knows that there are racial practices in existence there which are not tolerated in the Northern Territories and which we would not tolerate in a civilised society. I am well aware of the fact that many of these racial practices will go. Many have gone since I was in Salisbury less than a year ago, but so long as they exist—and they are much more than pinpricks—I do not believe that the African people will attach any reality to the meaning of the word "partnership".
I am quite convinced that in Nyasaland what is needed is a rapid and imaginative political advance. I am equally certain that it is a chimera to assume that one could negotiate in Nyasaland with anybody in the last resort other than Dr. Banda. I am certain that that is a fact the Government recognise as well. I was extremely interested in the observations made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He drew what I am sure is the correct conclusion, that in the last resort and on the final day each of these territories must be given the opportunity to decide whether it wishes to remain inside the Federation, or to contract out.
But, with due diffidence, I came to precisely the opposite conclusion to that which the hon. Member reached, because I cannot see why that decision must be taken now and I therefore cannot see why that decision must be within the terms of reference of the Monckton Commis-

sion. After all, if Nyasaland were set along the road to responsible self-government tomorrow, if her pattern of evolution were anything like the pattern of evolution in Ghana, it might take six or seven years before complete independence were reached.
Is it not more sensible for us to say to the people of Nyasaland and their leaders, "We propose to give you an imaginative advance. We propose to set you along the road towards internal self-government. Do not bother about federation now. The time for you to decide about that is when we are about to withdrawn from your territory as the protecting Power. Let us see, in the next six or seven years, whether we can work out an acceptable scheme of association between the territories."
Short of the right to discuss the question of the breaking up of the Federation, the Monckton Commission has been given very wide powers indeed. After all, probably as important as the right to discuss the break-up of the Federation is the right to discuss various amendments which may be made in the individual relationships between the territories and the Federal Government. As I understand, the Monckton Commission has full power to review the relationship of each territory with each other territory and also the relationship between each territory and the Federal Government, and I think and believe that this could include considerable amendments, perhaps giving greater powers to the territorial Governments which, in the short run, might satisfy those territories and make them—particularly the Northern Territories—wish to postpone a final decision about federation until the moment arises for our withdrawal as the protecting Power.
I have occasionally felt that members of the Labour Party, when they rightly feel concerned about our responsibility for the African population of Nyasaland, sometimes tend to overlook the very great moral responsibility which we have for the African population of Southern Rhodesia. When they talk glibly about breaking up the Federation, certain hon. Members opposite tend to ignore the fact that if the Federation were broken up tomorrow, and if Southern Rhodesia felt it necessary to join the Union, we should be handing over the 2½ million Africans of Southern Rhodesia to the


policies of apartheid. We should bear that in mind as a tremendous responsibility and a brake upon our eagerness to try to achieve a quick and easy solution. If anything of that kind were to happen, it would be calamitous not only for the Africans of this territory, but also for the whole structure of those countries in South and Central Africa.
Hon. Members have been more than kind to me and I will not detain the House longer, but before I sit down I should like to stress that it seems to me of tremendous importance that, as far as we can in the coming months, we should try among ourselves to think of these problems in perhaps a slightly less partisan way than has been done over the past year or two. I was tremendously struck by what I was about to describe as the moderation—although moderation is not always thought to be a complimentary term in these days—of a speech which I heard the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East make in a debate on the reply to the Address within a few days of my being elected to the House.
I felt that the approach which the hon. Member then made augured very promisingly for closer co-operation between the parties. I noticed at that time, and I have refreshed my memory since, one sentence which he used which caught my imagination. He said that the real task of the present Government was to restore African
confidence in the good intentions of the Conservative Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 668.]
I hope that the hon. Member thinks as I do—that the Prime Minister's speech in Lagos, and later his speech in Cape Town, and also the remarkable achievement of the Colonial Secretary over the Kenya Conference, show that tremendous strides have been made over the last three or four months and that, given good will and lack of partisan behaviour and hasty words, the road is clear for the kind of co-operation which will solve these difficultites—a solution for which we have all been hoping for the past five or six years.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: It is with genuine pleasure that I follow the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) and thank him on behalf of

the whole House for a quite remarkable maiden speech. He has made a very valuable contribution to our debate today. He has brought to the House a great deal of experience, and we hope that he will contribute still further to our debates, because his was the sort of contribution which we need on this subject, above all. I quite sincerely congratulate him. We look forward to hearing him again many times.
The hon. Member for Lancaster expressed the hope that we should have a bipartisan approach to the problem of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. We on this side of the House who have taken a particular interest in this subject have done so without any party political axe to grind. We take an interest in the position in Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and, indeed, of all the people there, Africans and Europeans, because we are genuinely interested in having peace and understanding between all the communities who live in that part of the world.
We are deeply conscious of the fact that it is in the House that the decisions about the future of Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be taken. In approaching the problems of the Federation, I re-emphasise what was said today by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan): we are interested just as much in the future of Europeans as we are in the future of the Africans who live in these territories.
I must, however, make one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster, because I felt that his reference to the position of Africans in Southern Rhodesia was based upon a false premise. He said that the reason for continuing the Federation, presumably even in its present form, was to ensure that we continue to have some influence over the position of the 2½ million Africans living in the Colony of Southern Rhodesia. We should have that power and influence even if the Federation completely collapsed, because Southern Rhodesia continues to be a Colony.
If the hon. Member for Lancaster would like a distinguished reference to back up my opinion, I refer him to the book of his hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is to reply to this debate. He will find there, in quite illuminating detail, the powers which are exercised by the Government of this country over the


legislation of the Colony of Southern Rhodesia. Even if the Federation were to break up completely, it would be beyond the powers of Southern Rhodesia to go into the Union of South Africa, even if the Union would accept her, which is a matter of considerable doubt, unless approval was given by the Government in this country.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend seems to me to have stated the point exactly. May I also remind him that Sir Edgar Whitehead is coming here next month to have discussions with Her Majesty's Government about the removal of these restrictions on the powers of the Southern Rhodesian Government in relation to the Africans there as a condition of the continuation of the Federation?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing up that point at this stage, because I wanted to refer to it myself in considering the problem before us today, namely the work of the Monckton Commission. It is certainly in all our interests that we have an objective approach to the problems of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
I want to say, at the outset, that I am not opposed to federation itself. I have never said that the Federation should be broken up. I believe—I think that this is the opinion of all my right hon. and hon. Friends—that if federation between these three territories in Central Africa is to succeed it must be a voluntary association between free peoples and must not be imposed on any of these peoples against their will.
I have spoken to many Africans. They are in favour of the theory of closer association between individual States. Indeed, at a conference in Accra, at the end of 1958, and more recently at the conference which took place in Tunis, they have emphasised and re-emphasised the importance of a union between African States. One thing which the Africans are trying to learn from the mistakes of Europeans is that they do not want the Balkanisation of their Continent. If we help them to establish the proper conditions for federation, I am confident that they will accept federation between Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia if it means that it is a free association

of these peoples and is not imposed on them.
One way of achieving that end would be for a constitution to be established in Rhodesia and Nyasaland which would give power to a wider circle of people than is at present the case. I am sure that I carry with me even hon. Gentlemen opposite when I say that virtually all the power in Central Africa today is in the hands of the white minority. This is the reason why the Africans are opposed to federation—because the power is in the hands of a minority which numbers less than 3 per cent. of the population. They fear that if that minority has all the political power in an independent federation as well as the economic privileges which it now enjoys it will use its political power to bolster up its own position at the expense of the African majority.
The hon. Member for Lancaster was absolutely right when he said that the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are frightened by what they find in Salisbury in Southern Rhodesia. That is the case. What the people of the two Northern Protectorates know is that the main political power in the Federation as at present constituted is in Southern Rhodesia, and it is in Southern Rhodesia that the most vicious racial laws have been applied.
If the Constitution of the Federation were altered to allow a wider electorate, perhaps on the lines of the first election held in Tanganyika, which was such a considerable success—for instance, with the qualification of £150 income per year—it would enable many more Africans to participate as electors and would give them confidence that the Federation was a structure which could protect them as well as the white minority.
Our main reason for having the debate today is to consider the work of the Monckton Commission. As the Central African Examiner has so rightly pointed out, the Commission is a way out of the Tories' dilemma. The Tories are trying to adjust their sails to the winds of change. They have brought in Lord Monckton to help them in this job. Unfortunately, they have given Lord Monckton an almost impossible assignment. He is a very able and distinguished man, and is carrying out this assignment with incredible success when


one considers the burdens which the policies of the Government have put on him.
However, we cannot escape from the fact that the present constitution of the Monckton Commission was the result of a most unhealthy compromise. It was originally proposed that there should be a Parliamentary Commission from the House of Commons to investigate the position in Nyasaland. Then the Federal Prime Minister objected. He did not want any sort of Parliamentary Commission investigating the future of the Federation. Therefore, after a number of journeys by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, the proposal was put forward for the Commission as at present constituted.
We on this side of the House objected not only to the terms of reference, but also to the composition. We felt that it was packed from the start with a great many pro-federationists appointed by the Governments directly concerned. Then there was the most ridiculous restriction on the members appointed by the Opposition. The Opposition were told—it was an insulting direction —that only Privy Councillors could be appointed from this side of the House. Yet, with not a word of explanation, when the Opposition declined the invitation because they considered that the terms of reference of the Commission far too restrictive, non-Privy Councillors were appointed in their stead, in particular Mr. Aidan Crawley.
The work of the Commission has got off to a very false start, but even now, with all the efforts of Lord Monckton to keep his unwieldy team together, the Government themselves are guilty of failure to establish the political conditions for the success of the Commission's work.
I want to refer to six counts on which the Government have failed on this score. First, there is the question of the terms of reference to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred. Even at this late stage, we ask the Government to amend the terms of reference to allow the secession of Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia to be recommended by the Commission. By holding to the original terms of reference and the gloss put on

them by the Prime Minister, opinion in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia has been alienated.
We now have the position that most of the Africans in the two Northern Protectorates are refusing to appear before the Commission. The United National Independence Party of Northern Rhodesia, the African National Congress also in that territory, and the Malawi Congress of Nyasaland are refusing to give evidence. If the Government want a genuine inquiry into the position in Central Africa they should enlarge the terms of reference so that these representatives of African political parties may have a chance to put forward their point of view, and not be tied in by these very restrictive terms of reference.
It is interesting to note that, to some extent, Lord Monckton himself has extended the terms of reference by saying that he is prepared to hear evidence from all sides, even that in favour of the secession of Nyasaland from the Federation. If Lord Monckton himself is prepared to go that far, will not the Government back him up by allowing him complete freedom of suggesting or recommending secession if the Commission should feel that the evidence it receives during the course of its inquiries justifies that course?
The next count on which the Government stand condemned is the continuation of the state of emergency in Nyasaland, which has continued now for over twelve months. In terms of civil rebellion in the Protectorate, there are now no grounds for the continuation of this state of emergency. Surely it is intolerable for the Monckton Commission to go to Nyasaland, in these circumstances of political suppression which the Devlin Commission itself called, in a memorable understatement
… no doubt only temporarily, a police state.
Temporariness has stretched to well over twelve months.
We ask the Government to tell us how long this state of affairs is to continue. Is the Colonial Secretary to allow the Federal Prime Minister to dictate to him the terms on which our own British Protectorate is run? I seriously suggest that these problems are completely germane to the work of the Monckton Commission on which we are


being asked to spend a large sum of money. We suggest that the journey which the Monckton Commission is proposing to start in Nyasaland next Monday is pointless unless, by their policies in that Protectorate, the Government allow the Commission to have the political conditions which will enable it to succeed in its work. Those conditions do not at present apply, because the Government have allowed this state of emergency to continue for so long. They continue to keep Dr. Hastings Banda in gaol—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I think that the hon. Member is going far beyond the Monckton Commission now.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am trying to demonstrate that it is quite wrong of the Government to ask the House to approve £40,000 of expenditure for the Monckton Commission unless they are also prepared to establish in these Protectorates political conditions that will allow the work of the Commission to be successful—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The conditions will be under a Vote separate from this one.

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will return to the subject in greater detail later, but it is one of the counts on which we suggest that the Monckton Commission's work is being made fruitless, particularly in Nyasaland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East also referred to the statements recently aired by Sir Edgar Whitehead and by Sir Roy Welensky. These, also, are handicapping the work of the Monckton Commission at present, and I ask the Minister of State to tell us whether any protest has been made either to Sir Edgar Whitehead or Sir Roy Welensky about Sir Edgar's statement in relation to the secession of Southern Rhodesia if certain conditions are not met, and about Sir Roy Welensky's reference to the position of Katanga and the likely federation of that Belgian Congo province with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
We understand that a protest has been made to the Foreign Secretary by the Belgian Ambassador here in London. Are we to understand that that protest

has been referred to Sir Roy Welensky, in view of the fact that statements such as this are undermining the work of the Monckton Commission at this crucial time?
I want now to refer to two questions that have cropped up very recently. These are the two final counts on which I criticise the Government for failing to establish the political conditions in which the Monckton Commission can succeed. The first relates to the use of defence forces in Nyasaland. No doubt this will be dealt with at greater length in the next Vote to be considered, but I felt that the Colonial Secretary was most evasive in his Answers to Questions last Thursday—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Stonehouse: Then I hope that the subject will be developed when we come to the next Vote, because it is of very great importance in the present situation in Nyasaland. Hon. Members will remember that twelve months ago the people of Nyasaland were greatly concerned when Federal troops were flown in from Southern Rhodesia—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue this point.

Mr. Stonehouse: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and go to the final point, which was—

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I seek only clarification, Sir Gordon. I am very ready, if it be in order, to deal on the next Vote with any points that may be raised on this particular matter, but, answering Questions a short time ago, I told the House that the movement of troops was not a matter that affected the Northern Territorial Governments, but was essentially a Federal responsibility. If it be a Federal responsibility, then, with respect, I do not see how it can come into the next group of Votes—but I may be wrong.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: All I said was that it did not come in on this Vote.

Mr. Macleod: I am sorry.

Mr. Stonehouse: As the Governors of the two Northern Territories are completely responsible for internal defence,


the troops of the Federation can move into the territory only at the invitation of those Governors—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the House is now aware that this does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Stonehouse: We would, however, on the next Vote, like to know why these troops are being moved into Nyasa-land—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the next Vote now.

Mr. Stonehouse: Then I will only say that before the Colonial Secretary comes to the next Vote he should read a very amusing leading article in The Guardian, which refers to the possible defence of Nyasaland against the Ufti.
Finally, I want to refer to the discussions currently going on, which will be continued in London, between the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, Sir Edgar Whitehead, and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I submit that if these discussions are allowed to reach the point of fruition, that will definitely change the whole character of the problem which the Monckton Commission was appointed to investigate.
I believe that it is most unwise, at this time, for the Government of Southern Rhodesia to be engaged in discussions which will enable Southern Rhodesia to be completely independent of any control regarding legislation affecting Africans in that territory. It would be absolutely wrong if, at this stage, progress is made on that issue before the Monckton Commission has completed its Report.
We are raising these matters concerning the work of the Monckton Commission, not to embarrass, but mainly to strengthen its work. Had the Government accepted the perfectly reasonable proposals that we made from this side of the House about the composition of the Commission and its terms of reference, it would have been possible for Opposition Members to have played a full part in the work of the Commission. We still press the Government to see the wisdom of the extension of the terms of reference of the Commission and particularly to do something to improve the political conditions in the two Northern Protectorates so that the work of the

Commission can be successful. Without those attempts, the work of the Commission will almost certainly be abortive.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: I must ask the House to extend its traditional tolerance to a Member attempting to address it for the first time. This would be a very moving occasion for me in any case, but it has been made even more so by the two hon. Members who have spoken immediately before me. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) is an old opponent of mine who routed me in a by-election a little over three years ago. Only last weekend I revisited his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) is my closest friend, and I hope that it will not be thought presumptuous of me if I join the hon. Member for Wednesbury in congratulating my hon. Friend on his very fine maiden speech.
I wondered when I tried to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether this might not be a rather too controversial subject on which to try to make a maiden speech, although I am very pleased to sec that the degree of controversy between the two sides of the House seems to have subsided somewhat.
I have lived and worked in Africa, and I spent the recent Parliamentary Recess visiting the three territories of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. This is a subject in which I am particularly interested. I can well understand the very strong feelings which have frequently been expressed on this question of federation, because clearly the future of Central Africa must be one of the most important problems facing this country and, indeed, the world in the next few years. What I have never really understood is why that controversy has so often seemed to centre not so much around the future of the Federation as on the Monckton Commission itself.
I listened with interest to the restatement of the criticisms of the terms of reference of the Monckton Commission by both the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the hon. Member for Wednesbury, but while I would personally have preferred to see rather wider terms of reference and would have preferred to see the Commission able to recommend within its terms of reference the break-up of the Federation,


if it thought that inevitable and unavoidable, I nevertheless have never been in any doubt that the present terms of reference are adequate for the Commission to play a tremendously important rôle. I am also satisfied that if the Commission, or a minority of it, came to the conclusion that Federation was unworkable, it would in fact be able to make its feelings clear.
When hon. Members have criticised the terms of reference agreed to by the Government, it is fair to point out— and, indeed, it was recognised in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East—that more than one Government was a party to the agreement to set up the Federation. Some hon. Members in discussing Central Africa are a little inclined, on occasion, to disregard the realities of power in that part of the world.
Another reason why, despite my reservations on the terms of reference, I have full confidence in the value of the Monckton Commission is the fact that it is an Advisory Commission and, as the events of the not-too-distant past prove, Governments of the day do not necessarily regard reports on Africa, from however distinguished a quarter, as Holy Writ. Whatever the Monckton Commission may report, there still have to be held the 1960 talks and afterwards the whole matter will have to be thrashed out in this House. Therefore, I would hope the whole House, having expressed its reservations in some cases, will support the work of this very distinguished Commission, for I am certain that it has a useful rôle to play.
What is most needed in Central Africa today is reassurance. Roosevelt said of the United States in the 1930s that they had nothing to fear but fear itself. When I was in Central Africa I felt that that was true there, too, for there is a great fear both by Africans and by Europeans. It seems to me that the Federation has very great advantages, both economic and political, and if we could make it succeed it would be the best possible thing for that part of the world.
The economic advantages are not really seriously challenged. One has only to read the Jack Report on Nyasaland to see what a parlous state that country would be in if it did not remain part of the Federation. But it is not only true of

Nyasaland. Southern Rhodesia, too, gains great economic benefits from its membership of the Federation. The symbol of the economic value and success of Federation is the Kariba Dam, because it is clear that not one of the three Governments acting alone could have raised on the world market the very large sums of money needed to finance the Kariba Dam. Only the existence of Federation made that possible. The dam makes the Zambesi a uniting link instead of a dividing frontier which otherwise it undoubtedly would be.
The political advantages of Federation, too, which I am sure will be brought to the attention of the Commission, are very great. We must all surely wish to avoid a political polarisation between a black nationalist North and a white nationalist South. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster mentioned what I regard as a vital point in our approach to this problem—the future of the 2½ million Africans in Southern Rhodesia if Federation were to break up. Whatever criticisms one may have of some of the racial practices of the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia, the Europeans at present are very loyal to Britain and the British connection. But if the Federation should break up, the emotional shock to them might well have the effect of driving them politically into the camp of the Union of South Africa, if not actually into the Union itself.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury referred to the reserve powers and seemed to suggest that this was not a real danger. With respect, I do not believe that in that sort of situation the reserve powers would be worth the paper on which they are written, and any hon. Member who attacks the Federation should bear that fact very much in mind. There is no doubt whatever that the fact that Southern Rhodesia has been a member of the Federation for the last few years has had a tremendously liberalising effect upon the policies of the Southern Rhodesian Government. I did not meet a single African in Southern Rhodesia who wished to see the Federation break up.
Another thing which particularly struck me in my conversations in Southern Rhodesia was that the best elements, the most far-seeing and liberal-minded elements, among the Europeans


in Southern Rhodesia supported federation. It was only the reactionaries, both European and African, who were against it. If it broke down, the Zambesi would become the frontier of the two Africas, black and white, and it would be an armed frontier. The consequences for the future of peace in that part of the world would be serious indeed. How much better it would be if we could create a multi-racial partnership. There are many influential elements in Southern Rhodesia working to that end.
I am fully aware of all the difficulties which the Monckton Commission will have put before it. There is no doubt at all that African opinion in the two Northern Protectorates is at present overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of federation. Also, there is growing European hostility to the idea in Southern Rhodesia. The Africans fear that federation is a device for perpetuating European political domination. The Europeans fear that it is a means whereby they will all too quickly be subjected to inoompetent government. I believe that the Commission may well be able to make recommendations which will help the Government to meet both these fears.
I myself found the degree of racial discrimination in Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia extremely disturbing. I do not believe that it is defeasible for a moment, for instance, that a leading member of the Asian community to whom I talked—a civilised man by any standards and, indeed, a rich man— should be unable when driving from Salisbury to Lusaka to be served with tea at any hotel on the road. I do not believe that it is defensible that there are no Africans on the footplates of the railway engines of Northern Rhodesia, because of the opposition of the European unions, while there are African engine drivers throughout the Belgian Congo and Tanganyika. I am sure that no hon. Member of the House would support that kind of thing.
That sort of discrimination is politically foolish and morally wrong. It seems to me that it can best be overcome through the existence of the Federation and, if it is done away with, any hope of progress in Southern Rhodesia will come to an end at once. What the Commission must do is to devise means which, if put into effect by subsequent agree-

ment, would ensure that, while the liberalising influence continues in the South, the discriminatory practices can by no possible means spread to the North. Indeed, the removal of these discriminatory practices is at present even more important than any political or economic advances in that part of the world.
It is important to bear in mind, I believe, that Southern Rhodesia is moving in the right direction and moving fairly quickly. In the short time that I was in Southern Rhodesia, about three weeks, two hotels became multi-racial, and I met many people of all classes and outlooks who recognised that, in the changing conditions of Africa, this kind of discrimination could not continue.
The economic achievement of the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia for the Africans is an extremely fine one. About 80 per cent. of all Africans in Southern Rhodesia receive a primary education, a higher proportion than is to be found anywhere else in the whole of Africa. The expectation of life of an African at birth in Southern Rhodesia is 48 years, compared with only 40 years in Nyasaland. This is an example of the great rôle for the benefit of Africans which Europeans can play and have been playing. If we can overcome some of the political and social problems, then, I feel, the Europeans will have a wonderful contribution to make in Central Africa.
In Nyasaland, there are three main fears among Africans. First, they fear that their land tenure rights might be endangered. Secondly, they have felt that federation is slowing up their rate of political advance in comparison with adjoining African territories. Thirdly, of course—this is a factor which we must never overlook—there are the personal ambitions of some of the educated African leaders. I believe that here, too, the Monckton Commission can play a very valuable role.
For my part, I believe that, if federation is to be saved, it is necessary to have a considerable reduction in the Federal powers and a corresponding increase in the territorial powers. Of course, the Federal powers are already a great deal less than is commonly assumed. One of the difficulties in discussing Central Africa from this country is that, since we have a unitary Government here,


very few people realise how a federal government works and how comparatively limited the Federal powers are already. There are certain Federal powers such as those governing prisons, hospitals, and European education, which could revert to the territories, leaving the Federal Government little more than foreign affairs, defence, Customs and the Post Office. I think that such a change might help to restore confidence among Africans in Nyasaland.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster that rapid constitutional advance is necessary in Nyasaland. I do not believe that this can usefully be achieved unless Dr. Banda can be persuaded to be associated with it. I did not meet Dr. Banda and I heard many criticisms of him, but, rightly or wrongly, he is at present regarded in Nyasaland as the one Messianic figure, and I think that it is an illusion to imagine that any other African leader will emerge to replace him. He should be given responsibility. Then we will see whether he is of the calibre to fulfil it, and, incidentally, so will his African supporters.
I believe that it would help to win support for federation if the Federal capital were moved from Salisbury. In African minds in Nyasaland, there is, unfortunately, a tendency to confuse the Federal Government in Salisbury with Southern Rhodesia and with the Union. Africans do not see them as three separate entities. Indeed, with the best will in the world, it is difficult to see how, with the Federal capital in Salisbury, it is possible for Federal Ministers and Federal civil servants not to be unduly influenced by Southern Rhodesian considerations. The Federal Parliament House and the Territorial Parliament House are side by side, with adjoining doors. The Ministers and civil servants all meet in the Salisbury Club for drinks at lunchtime and dinnertime each day. They read the same local newspapers.
If there were a quite separate Federal capital, perhaps at Livingstone, the old capital of Northern Rhodesia, on the borders between Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia and on the line of rail, this might help. It is worth reflecting that other great Federal States such as Australia and the United States faced

this kind of problem in their formative days and in both cases came to the conclusion that it would be better to start with an entirely new capital separated from the existing centres of power.
In my view, a Bill of Rights could usefully be written into any new Federal Constitution. Among other things, it would embody two principles. First, it would embody something along the lines of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which would make racial discrimination positively illegal. The difficulty at the moment is that, although many of the political leaders of the Federal Government and, indeed, of the Southern Rhodesian Government, have the best possible intentions, they cannot go faster than their European electorates will at present permit them. If there were, as in the United States, actually written into the Constitution certain provisions which made racial discriminatory practices illegal, then the opponents of these practices would not have to take the matter through the polling booth; they could appeal to the Supreme Court. This, I believe, might be welcomed by some of the European politicians in Southern Rhodesia. They would be able to avoid the need for taking unpopular decisions.
On the other hand, I think that there should also be written into the Bill of Rights a protection against the future expropriation of property. It is very important for us all to remember that, while in the short term the problem in these multi-racial communities is how to give the Africans the rights which we believe should belong to them as their education improves, in the long run the more difficult problem will be to protect the rights of the European minorities. That, I am sure, will be exercising our minds most in the future.
Of course, I recognise that we may fail in attempting to make federation a success and that, whatever the conclusions of the Monckton Commission, it may turn out that federation cannot be made to work. It may be that nothing can save the Federation. It may be that African and even European opinion has passed the point of no return in its opposition. But surely we all have an obligation to go on trying while there is still hope, because this Federation


seems to me to be the most daring, the most difficult and the most hopeful experiment taking place in Africa at the present day.
It is only seven years old—and what is that in the span of man's age-old struggle to learn to govern himself with dignity and decency? When we think of the early years of the United States, with all the difficulties that it had to overcome, including a civil war, the events of the last seven years in Central Africa have been extraordinarily placid and extremely hopeful for the future. This is not a problem confined to Central Africa. It is not a problem of black versus white. Racial strife is one of the most terrible problems that the world faces. In Europe only a few years ago we had the ghastly story of Hitler and the Jews. We have racial problems in Ceylon and in the Belgian Congo and in many other parts of the world. It is quite wrong to give the impression that this is a problem of black versus white.
Africa is the continent of tribalism, and the Africans, above all, should appreciate the problems facing Europeans in this situation. If federation could be made to succeed, I believe that it would crown our endeavours in creating our multi-racial Commonwealth. This Commission, in my view, has a great contribution to make, and I believe that it may well come to rank in our imperial history with the Simon Report on India and the Durham Report on Canada, to the lasting benefit of all the peoples of Central Africa.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I have very great pleasure indeed in offering, I am sure on behalf of the whole House, my very warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell). His was a maiden speech which betrayed none of the signs of nervousness which are normally coupled with such an occasion. I am certain that the whole House listened with great interest to an extraordinarily interesting and illuminating contribution to our debate, and I am sure that we shall listen with equal interest on future occasions when my hon. Friend addresses the House.
I wish to make only a very short speech. Before I start, may I say that I hope that perhaps somebody on the

Opposition Front Bench will pay some attention to what we on this side of the House have to say.
I was glad to find buried rather deeply in the rather restrained speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) a more than merited contribution to Lord Monckton, because I was sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—and in view of some of his earlier remarks, I must express my regret that he is not on the Front Bench now—did not appear to be at all willing to give the Commission a chance. His speech was full of the remark, "How right we were". He said it two or three times.
I very much doubt whether this kind of self-congratulation is the sort of thing which we in this House can use with advantage at the moment. We are faced with a very difficult problem. On this occasion, would it have been too much to ask the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members who sit behind him, to have given just a word of blessing and support to the Monckton Commission in its very difficult task, instead of harking back to the old arguments about its terms of reference, which we all know the party opposite did not find acceptable? We know their reasons. They have been expressed many times.
I would not have intervened in the debate had it not been for the speech made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East which, I think, was singularly ungenerous in that he failed to give the Monckton Commission even a word of support in its difficult task.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I cannot believe that the hon. Member heard my hon. Friend's speech. He made a conciliatory speech and his reference to the Monckton Commission was that he wished that its terms of reference could be changed so that it could do a constructive job.

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has followed the point which I am trying to make. All that I was saying was that it would have been much more welcome and appropriate if the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, instead of saying, "How right we are to object to it", could have said on this occasion, now that the Monckton Commission had started on


its work, "We give it full support and encouragement and wish it every success". Had he limited himself to that, I think that he would have made a most effective contribution.
There is only one thing that I want to say, and I say it very seriously. Perhaps I could put it in the form of a plea. It is so easy and tempting to lecture people who live thousands of miles away on how to deal with a very difficult problem with which they feel themselves, with some justification, to be entirely familiar and fully experienced.
I remember the last time I was in the Federation that again and again ordinary decent Europeans, many of them with very liberal sentiments, were anxious to see the progress of their country along lines which hon. Members in this House have constantly called for. How often have such people said to me, "You are a British M.P. You have come out here to tell us how to handle our problems." I think that we could be a little more sparing in our advice to people who live so far away and who are on top of one of the most difficult problems facing the modern world.

Mr. Stonehouse: Would not the hon. Member agree that, time and again, speeches have been made from his side of the House lecturing the Africans in Central Africa on what they should do?

Mr. Peyton: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not agree. If speeches are made from this side which can be said to be lecturing the Africans, I think that they are equally wrong with those which I am now commenting upon, which seek so often to lecture the Europeans in Africa, who, as I say, are faced with an intolerably difficult problem, as we all admit.
All I wish to say is this. I am extremely sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East is not in his place because, again and again, he has wagged a lecturing finger from the Dispatch Box opposite. He has gone out to Africa, to the territories with which we are now concerned, and he has wagged a finger at people—and some of his colleagues have done the same—until those who should now be turning a ready ear to useful advice from here are sick and

tired of the sort of dictatorial advice which too often is based on lack of knowledge.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: There are five points that I should like to make briefly before we leave the subject of the Monckton Commission. I shall not hark back to the past, to use the expression of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton).
First, may I say a word about the terms of reference? I felt that the terms of reference, looked at through lawyer's eyes, were too restricted, but I think that what was most unfortunate was their lack of clarity, particularly in the gloss put upon them. I had the feeling that that lack of clarity was deliberate and that there was the intention that the terms of reference should mean one thing in the Federation and something rather different in this House. That was an unfortunate start to the work of the Commission. I only hope that the Commission's work will not be handicapped by that unfortunate lack of clarity in the terms of reference.
Secondly, the Commission cannot undo the past. It is very sad that there is this loss of faith in Nyasaland in particular in the protection of Britain and the British Crown. At one time, the Nyasaland people were the most loyal of subjects in our Colonial Territories. There is no doubt that they have been greatly disillusioned by what has happened over the last seven or eight years. I do not think there is much hope for a multi-racial partnership until we recover some of that lost faith.
Thirdly, I believe that there must be less, not more, power for the Federal Government. I hope that that is one of the aspects of this problem which the Monckton Commission will consider. One of the reasons for the troubles that have arisen in recent years has been the extent of the powers handed over to the Federal Government rather than retained by the territorial Governments.
Fourthly, I believe that too little attention has been paid to the possibilities of economic as opposed to political association. I do not accept the view that it is not possible to have economic association between the three territories without the political power being transferred


to the Federal Government. I do not think that we have always sufficiently recognised British responsibility for the economic development of Nyasaland, part of which we—and when I say "we" I mean this country as a whole—have been willing to pass over to the Federal Government.
I therefore very much regret the speech reported in The Times today by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations at Luton on 14th March, in which he is reported as having referred to Nyasaland as the slum of Africa.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): Like my noble Friend the Secretary of State, I have seen that report, and I think that it is not really an accurate representation of what my noble Friend said. He said something which has been said many times in the past in answer to a question which was put to him regarding the future, namely, that there would be a danger of it becoming a slum if it did not have the economic advantages which came from its association with the Federation.

Mr. Wade: I am glad to hear what the Minister says, but, even so, I think that it was a little unfortunate to use the expression "the slum of Africa". It does not alter the fact that for seventy or eighty years Britain has been responsible for the economic development of Nyasaland, and, if conditions today are such as to justify that expression, Britain must surely accept some responsibility.
The fifth point that I want to make, which is all too obvious, is this. Federation cannot be imposed by force. It may be too late, but it cannot succeed without good will. It is almost a law of political evolution in Colonial Territories that, if one does not come to terms with moderate Nationalist leaders, sooner or later one will have to give way to extremists. I do not know whether one would call Dr. Banda a moderate or an extremist, but I urge that an attempt be made to come to terms with Dr. Banda. I very much regret that a man like Sir John Moffat was not allowed to meet Dr. Banda and discuss the political situation. Surely a man like Sir John Moffat would have been very

helpful in bringing about a solution. As I say, it may be too late.
I do not want to see the Monckton Commission fail. I wish it well, but I am certain that it will come to one conclusion—that federation cannot be imposed by force.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: We are discussing this enormous subject on the peg of a relatively small Vote of £40,000, but I feel that the House should remember that, if by mischance federation fails, in years to come there is no doubt that an enormous sum of money will be required from the taxpayers of this country to support Nyasaland and to prevent it falling into the condition described by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in his speech at Luton. It would not be a question of £40,000, but of between £5 million and £6 million, if not more.
As hon. Members know very well, since Federation there have been great economic developments in Nyasaland which have been largely paid for by revenues raised from other parts of the Federation.

Mr. Wade: I should like to make this clear. Throughout our discussions on federation, I have always taken the view that Britain should be prepared to undertake expenditure that in the past has been borne by the Federation. In other words, if we proceed on what I would have thought would be a wiser course, I accept what follows, namely, that £3 million or £4 million, or whatever it may be, would have to be borne by the Exchequer.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is very good to hear that the hon. Member accepts that. I dare say that a great many people in this country would accept it, but I doubt whether very many people know that that is one of the likely consequences if federation collapses.
Economic advances have been made in Nyasaland since federation—for example, hospitals and schools have been built—but there is no doubt that only a small proportion of this has been paid for by the revenues raised in Nyasaland, if one works out the sum properly. Once an economy has been geared up to expect higher and better things, it cannot be allowed to collapse.


The consequence of these revenues not being drawn from Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia—

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Fletcher - Cooke: Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is a matter of debate.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No, it is not.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is. I am debating it.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Surely the hon. and learned Member knows the difference between a fact and an argument. It is merely a question of ascertaining the fact whether it is Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. and learned Gentleman gives his opinion as a fact, but I do not accept it as fact and, therefore, it is a matter of debate. I am saying that, to a certain extent, Nyasaland has been on the back of the Federation as a whole. That being so, and if the Federation breaks up, there is no doubt that we shall be investigating expenditure, not of £40,000, but of many millions of pounds. That is something that we must face and consider and which I hope we should want to avoid, although, at the same time, I have no doubt that we shall honour that obligation with as much readiness as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) has indicated.
I was very impressed by both the maiden speeches made from this side of the House, as I am sure was everybody who heard them. I was particularly impressed by the reminder which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell) gave us of the higher standards of life that the Africans enjoy in Southern Rhodesia and almost in every part of the African continent, of the higheT expectation of life, of the great advantages in housing and health and in all the things that are essential not only for economic advance but for political advance.
Many times from these benches I have on African matters somewhat criticised the fact that political advances have

sometimes outstripped what one might call the taking of responsibility in executive and in Civil Service positions by the Africans. It always seemed to me that one of the reasons of the success of the independence of such great countries as India was the fact that there was a Civil Service ready to take over when independence arrived, something which has not begun to happen in most of the African territories.
That seems to me to be a very dangerous and a very bad state of affairs. It is, of course, quite cheap and fairly easy to extend the franchise and to give votes, because those things do not cost very much. But to put Africans as they should be and now have a right to be in positions of responsibility in the machinery of Government is much harder. Yet without this any independence is likely to be a mockery. Executive responsibility depends directly on a higher standard of education than they have previously had. That, in turn, depends almost certainly upon a high state of economic prosperity.
It seems to me that in many ways the priority in timing is all wrong and that in Nyasaland we have not the condition for, much as we now want it, a strong constitutional advance. There are no Africans who are accustomed to responsibility in the Government machine to be found at low levels and there are practically no graduates and no people with a proper secondary education. How in these circumstances can we expect a sufficiently wide constitutional advance on the political level and in votes and suffrage to be a success? One of the reasons why we have not got that is because of the economic condition of Nyasaland, which is very backward, but which, as a result of federation, has taken a good many leaps forward.
Surely one must realise, as many of the African leaders realise, that they need the European there as much as possible. The contrast, for example, between the attitude of some of the leaders in Nyasaland whom the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and I met there two or three years ago, with the views in Tanganyika, is very great. When we discussed economic matters and the future exploitation and development of their country we found the contrast to be remarkable. Mr. Julius Nyerere, who,


after all, is a neighbour of theirs, realises that, without European support, without European settlement and capital and without all the other things he cannot have the schools that he wants for his people. He cannot have the health services, the universities and all the things that go to make up a proper economy and a proper polity.
When one talks to Nyasaland leaders they do not think that at all. I suppose that proportionately they have no more European settlers there than there are in Tanganyika—perhaps a few more, but not many. Yet in Nyasaland if we said to them, "Well, first of all, there is this direct economic aid which you are getting from the Rhodesias"—I say the "Rhodesias"—and there is not only that but the fact that such European settlers who are here, the tobacco companies, the tea planters and so on are creating the wealth for your new hospitals, for your new schools and for your teachers," they would look with blank amazement, and say, "But what is that? After all, we have our trees and whether the white man is here or not the trees will still be here." Their view of an economic viable State seemed to be that provided they could grow the trees that was enough.
It seems to me that it is a very dangerous look-out if in the neighbouring country of Nyasaland to that of Tanganyika there is such a remarkable contrast in outlook between the leaders of the Africans. Certainly in Tanganyika the African leadership realises what I should have thought was obvious, that without economic prosperity there can be no education and that without education there can be no life.
I think that when we talk, as many hon. Members on both sides have talked, in a rather resigned tone about federation having, perhaps, to break up, we should realise what the economic consequence of that would be, not merely because it is unfortunate that people should be poorer than need be but because of all the things that flow from poverty in Africa. Those things are the things that we hate, whereas the things that flow from prosperity are the things that we encourage.
I want to sound this note of warning. I, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, feel that we should not shirk the responsibility of subventing Nyasaland

again if we have to, but it would be a frightful commentary on all our efforts if we had a good prospect seven years ago of making this area of Africa into a viable supporting community and after that part of it would have to come back again to this country with the begging bowl asking for a dole of £5 million or £6 million or more from this House even in order to tread water and even to maintain the regrettably low standard which it had achieved up to then. Before we talk about scrapping federation, let us realise what one of the consequences of doing that may be, because if we think about it we must realise that it would be a pretty pathetic end to a promising chapter.

5.38 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I should like, if I may, to be associated with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) in congratulating my two hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) and Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell) upon their maiden speeches. I think the House will agree that in both cases the speeches were sympathetic to the subject and most constructive and were made by those who have had personal contacts with the problems of Africa and have seen the problems there for themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster was perfectly correct when he emphasised the important part which the Monckton Commission has to play in design in relation to the distribution of powers between the Federal Government and the territorial Government. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 24th November last, the terms of reference
will permit the Commission to consider the whole field of the redistribution of powers in either direction between the Federation and the territories and to advise on the timing of any programme and the character of any changes in the framework that it may suggest." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1959; Vol. 614, c. 208.]
I should have thought that that was a very clear statement of one of the important functions of the Commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West drew attention to the Jack Report, and this is very closely relevant to the point which my hon. and learned


Friend the Member for Darwen has just made. I hope that other hon. Members who are interested in the economic aspects of the problem, particularly in Nyasaland, will take the opportunity, if they have not already done so, of studying that Report. As I have said, those of us who have been occupied for some time past in trying to discuss and work out solutions to the difficult problems in Africa can feel from those two maiden speeches that we have good reinforcements in the fields in which we are interested, and we shall look forward to hearing both my hon. Friends on many other occasions.
The debate was opened by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in what I must confess, from my own experience of occasions on which he has addressed the House on this subject, was a conciliatory way. I am grateful to him for that contribution, but he drew attention to the terms of reference and, indeed, as far as I understood it, based the whole of his case upon the objections to the terms of reference as he saw them.
He said that great events were happening in Africa at present—in the Congo, East Africa and elsewhere—and that this had made the terms of reference of the Commission out of date. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the Commission's position absolutely clear. On 24th November he said:
This Commission is appointed to review an existing Constitution to which its terms of reference naturally relate. I am sure that it is the wish of the House that a solution should emerge acceptable to all the races in the territories concerned. The terms of reference, in my opinion, give the Commission full scope to advise us on how best that object can be achieved, but, of course, if the Commission thinks that it could not fulfil its task to its satisfaction within the terms of reference, no doubt it would say so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1959: Vol. 614. c. 215.1
Therefore, it is really for the Commission—which, after all, consists of extremely experienced persons both in terms of Africa and of politics and constitutional matters—to decide whether the terms of reference can be fulfilled in accordance with what the Prime Minister said was its own satisfaction, or whether that is not the case. If the Commission feels dissatisfied no doubt it will say so.

Mr. Callaghan: This is a point which has concerned us more than once. Does

that statement mean that it will be open to the Commission, at any time, say, in the next few weeks, before it breaks up, to come back to the Government and say, "We do not think we can carry out the terms of reference. Can you please give us fresh terms?" Or does the statement mean merely that in its final Report, when the Commission is over, it will be able to say it then? If the Commission is free to do it first, it will be very helpful.

Mr. Alport: The Prime Minister's words are extremely clear:
… If the Commission thinks that it could not fulfil its task to its satisfaction within the terms of reference, no doubt it would say so.
I do not intend to produce any gloss on what my right hon. Friend said. I do not think that there is any need to do so. That is a perfectly clear statement of the position as far as the Government see the Commission in relation to the terms of reference.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman say, then, in view of that clear statement, what the answer is to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)?

Mr. Alport: I do not think that that question requires to be asked. The Prime Minister's statement said that
… if the Commission thinks that it could not fulfil its task to its satisfaction within the terms of reference, no doubt it would say so.
There are plenty of ways in which it would be able to say so. I have drawn attention to the Prime Minister's statement. It is a very clear one—if the Commission feels, as he said, that it cannot do its task within its terms of reference, it will say so. Quite obviously, it will say so to the Governments concerned.

Mr. Callaghan: I take it, then, from what has been said, that it is open to the Commission at any time, from now until the time when it makes its Report, to indicate that it is not able to fulfil the terms of reference?

Mr. Alport: It is open for it to do what the Prime Minister has said.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman must be frank.

Mr. Alport: I am being frank. That question is made quite clear by what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister


has said—that the Commission can at any time say so if it cannot fulfil its task to its satisfaction within the terms of reference. I have repeated three times what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, so that it should be clear not only to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East but to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas).

Mr. Dingle Foot: rose

Mr. Alport: I have given way a number of times already. If the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) will allow me to continue my speech I will be most grateful.
On the other point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, I must say that I felt with him, and have said so on many occasions, that the real object of the experiment of federation in Central Africa is to try and ensure effective partnership between the races. He put it this way—and I think I am quoting him correctly—"Living harmoniously in the territories".

Mr. Callagban: And freely.

Mr. Alport: And freely, certainly. If we can achieve that in Central Africa through federation, or if it can be achieved by those on the spot through federation, it will be a very great advance in the politics of that continent. I am glad to feel from this debate today that, as far as the work of the Commission is concerned, and the contribution it may make to the achievement of precisely that end, both sides are united in wishing the Commission well with the work it has in band.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) drove off a number of times and each time seemed to find that he was out of bounds, and I had some sympathy with him. It is not easy to see where this debate ends and the next one begins. I will not follow him on the various points he raised, but there is every chance for anybody who wishes to give his views to the Commission to do so, whatever those views may be.
Again, I quote what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, this time on 21st July. He said:
I would say that it was clear to me that the Commission would be free, in practice, to hear all points of view from whatever

quarter on whatever subject, although, of course, we thought it right to give it terms of reference which accord with what we regard as the object of the 1960 Review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1959; Vol. 609, c. 1079.]
So the hon. Member for Wednesbury should be under no misapprehension that the Commission cannot hear any point of view which anyone who wisihes to give evidence wishes to express.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Including civil servants?

Mr. Alport: The rule with regard to civil servants is precisely the same as with the same form of Commission in this country. They can give evidence on the work of their Departments and give any information the Commission may wish to obtain from them.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury said that there must be no constitutional changes, as far as Southern Rhodesia was concerned, during the process of the procedure of the Monckton Commission. I am not sure whether he realises that that rule, if indeed he is advocating that it should be a rule, would mean that there presumably could not be constitutional change in any other territory as well. I would have thought that that was a principle not acceptable to either side of the House. I am not sure whether he meant it that way, but I draw his attention to the logical consequences of what he was saying.
I am glad to have this opportunity of saying something about the work of the Commission to date. After all, in its narrow sense this debate is concerned with the administration of the Commission and the work it is undertaking in the Federation at the present moment. But I must make it clear that, as with the other Governments, we are only in touch with the Commission's work in so far as we have general responsibility for the arrangements being made for it. I cannot therefore give the House a fully detailed account of progress up to the present in relation to the work which the Commission has accomplished in Northern Rhodesia.
I think, however, that it would be right and would be the wish of the House that I should pay a tribute to the energy and strong sense of service which the Commissioners have shown in applying themselves to their onerous task. The conditions under which a Commission of


this sort must work are inevitably arduous, and as a result four of the Commissioners have suffered short periods of indisposition, while Lord Shawcross and Mr. Justice Beadle have both been in hospital. I hope that both will be restored to full health in a very short period of time.
As the House is aware, the Advisory Commission has so far been taking evidence in Northern Rhodesia. It assembled at Victoria Falls on 15th February and went on to Northern Rhodesia on 18th February. It is at present assembling in Lusaka to continue to take evidence and go through the large amount of material which has been produced by the three parties into which the Commission was divided for its Northern Rhodesian tour.
The House will no doubt have seen some excellent photographs in the Daily Telegraph illustrating the picturesque conditions in which the work of the Commission is at present being undertaken. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, however, that one would not necessarily want to stay there indefinitely, and therefore it would be sad if the Opposition succeeded in reducing the Vote.
The arrangements for the Commission's work have gone extremely smoothly and it has had the opportunity of hearing evidence from a very large number of witnesses, indeed a greater number than was expected. The threat of an African boycott seems to have had relatively little effect, and the decision of the chairman, Lord Monckton, to hear evidence in private, together with the assurances of the Attorneys-General of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the Government of Southern Rhodesia with regard to the protection of witnesses, has clearly enabled many who wish to have their views heard by the Commission to come forward for that purpose.
A large Commission consisting of 26 distinguished members together with the necessary secretarial assistance, the extensive travelling, the accommodation and other expenses which must be involved must inevitably result in substantial expenditure. This Supplementary Estimate for £40,000 is to provide for the expenses of the Commission up to 31st March, 1960. Subsequently, however, moneys will be required to meet the ex-

penses of the Commission until such time as its report is completed. I cannot, of course, say when this is likely to be, but the chairman and members of the Commission are well aware of the importance of completing their work in sufficient time to make it possible for their advice to be fully digested by the five Governments before the opening date of the 1960 Constitutional Review Conference.
Whatever may have been the controversies surrounding the appointment of the Commission, I am sure that the House will welcome this report which indicates the progress which the members are making in tackling the formidable yet important work with which they are entrusted. I am sure that the House would agree that now that the Commission is hard at work collecting evidence, the result of which will have a direct bearing upon the whole future of this important part of Africa, nothing should be done which would make its task more difficult. I am grateful therefore, as I said, to hon. Members who have spoken in the debate for the restraint which they have exercised in tackling this difficult problem.
The House will have a full opportunity of studying and subsequently debating the Commission's Report when it is published and the same no doubt will apply in the other Assemblies of the various other countries concerned. I hope, therefore, that the House will not divide against the Supplementary Estimate, since the differences of point of view have already been fully deployed in the House in recent months and are well known to the Commissioners. Once the Commissioners have started on their work it seems only right that they should be allowed to get on with the job, while I fully acknowledge that the position of the Opposition is reserved against the time when we shall all be able to examine the advice contained in the final report and consequently see precisely for ourselves what the situation will be at that time.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman referred in terms of some conviction to the opening date of the 1960 Conference. Has a date been fixed?

Mr. Alport: From my recollection, I think the agreement is that it will be opened as soon as possible after the 23rd October. No date has been fixed.

Mr. Foot: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer a further question? If the Monckton Commission should make a request that its terms of reference be enlarged, would Her Majesty's Government be disposed to accede to that request?

Mr. Alport: The hon. and learned Member has asked me a hypothetical question which I am afraid must have the normal answer, which is that I cannot answer a hypothetical question.

Mr. Callaghan: We tabled the Amendment because a great deal of discussion is going on in Central Africa and other parts about the future of these territories. We did not feel it right that the whole future of Central Africa should be put to sleep while the Commission was sitting and we felt that we should have the opportunity of expressing our views on a developing situation. But we have no desire to incarcerate any of the Commissioners even in the pleasant paradise of the summer palace of the Paramount Chief of Barotseland. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Resolution agreed to.

Second Resolution agreed to.

Third Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL SERVICES

5.55 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: I beg to move, to leave out "£10" and insert "£5".
This sum of money is the first instalment that the British taxpayer is being asked to pay of the price of the emergency in Nyasaland. As far as I can understand, it is only the first instalment because, according to an Answer that the Colonial Secretary gave on 16th February, it seems likely that there will be another £1 million on the bill before the end of the financial year 1961–62. And this is only the financial bill for the emergency. The political bill is still to be calculated and will depend a great deal upon the wisdom with which the problems which we have just dis-

cussed are faced in the months that lie immediately ahead.
Perhaps two things might be said straight away about the sum of money which the House is being asked to vote. At the risk of the wrath of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), I must say that this emergency need never have taken place and the Vote need never have been before the House if the Government had followed the advice of the Opposition and, before March last year, had made concessions of reasonable political advance and the promise of the right of self-determination for the people of Nyasaland in relation to the question of secession. There would then have been no emergency and no Vote before us tonight.
Again, if the Government had seized the priceless opportunity which they were offered as long ago as last summer, when the Devlin Commission reported and quite deliberately gave the Government the chance of reconciliation between Dr. Banda and the Governor of Nyasaland, the cost of the emergency, both financially and politically, would have been a great deal less than it has been. But, as we know, the emergency has dragged on month after month, and, in our view, indefensibly.
We were greatly heartened in January when the Secretary of State, in his speech at Leeds, talked about the need for an early end of the emergency. It is two months ago since that speech was made and the emergency is still with us, and, as the Colonial Secretary will be well aware, he now has against him on this matter a body of public opinion which is very critical and widespread. It includes not merely the normal newspapers which take a liberal view, such as The Guardian and the Observer but, as he will know, The Times, on more than one occasion, has indicated that it feels that the emergency should be brought to an end.
As this situation has carried on, the unsatisfactory situation in which this country finds itself has become clearer and clearer and has revealed the humiliating position in which the Government have allowed themselves to be placed. The British Government have imposed a state of emergency in a territory for which they are responsible and have put into detention citizens of the Commonwealth who are protected persons of the


Commonwealth. Yet the moment they go into prison under detention orders they are removed from the protection of the British Government.
We had an example recently, when Sir John Moffat, a respected politician in Central Africa, sought an interview with Dr. Hastings Banda in prison. As I understood it, the British Government were not unwilling that the interview should take place, and most helpful results might have come from it. However, the Federal Government, which has the responsibility for people in their places of detention, refused permission and the British Government weakly gave way.
As the Colonial Secretary knows, my hon. Friends and myself have from time to time put to him many Questions about the conditions under which people are being detained; Questions about conditions in prisons, about health dangers, about visitors attempting to see those in detention. All the time we are given the answer that this is a Federal responsibility and that the conditions of imprisonment of those for whom we are responsible in this House are no longer within our jurisdiction. This is a most unsatisfactory position.
What has also been becoming increasingly clear is the final humiliation which has been imposed on the British Government during the last month or two. It is that the British Government find themselves unable or unwilling to end their own state of emergency in a territory for which they are responsible because of Federal opposition. If the Minister feels that this is unduly strong and unfair language, I will quote to him the words used by The Times as far back as 18th February:
… there is good reason for supposing that if the British Government had had their way, Dr. Banda would by now have been released and be back in Nyasaland …
It stated, later, that the British Government cannot afford to hesitate longer. That was four weeks ago, and the purpose of this debate, and our reason for tabling our Amendment, is to attempt to stiffen the Government into doing their overdue duty of ending the emergency, bringing about the release of Dr. Banda, and carrying out the other steps which should go with this and of which I shall speak in a moment.
One of the questions to which the House will want to address itself on this

Vote is whether the money in the Vote, nearly £¾ million, will be wisely spent. Insofar as we have been able to gain information about this money, it seems that it will be devoted almost entirely to strengthening the forces of law and order. I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any part of this money will go towards the cost of maintaining the Federal troops which have arrived recently in Nyasaland.
It seems to us on this side of the House that this movement of Southern Rhodesian troops was a most unfortunate and provocative step. The House will remember—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Thomson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The internal security of Nyasaland is the responsibility of the Governor under the British Government. This Vote is related to internal security, and it is on this that I am seeking further enlightenment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The movement of Federal troops is under the Federal Government.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. May I make a further submission, to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The hon. Gentleman was speaking on the subject of the detention of Dr. Banda and he may do so again. I understand that all prisoners are the responsibility of the Federation and so, if anything, they come under the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and not my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary.

Mr. John Dugdale: Further to that point of order. Although the troops may be Federal troops they have been accepted in Nyasaland by the Government. It is for internal responsibility that they have been accepted. If it did not want them, they would not be there. Is that not a fact?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: But they do not appear to be included in the Vote which we are discussing.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Further to that point of order. This seems to be a tremendously important point upon which you are ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not


the case that in both British Protectorates, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the duty of internal security is in the hands of the respective Governments? Is not this Vote on the issue of Nyasaland, and is it not related to the maintenance of the emergency in that territory? If that is so, I submit to you that all matters which relate to the internal security of Nyasaland are in order in this debate.
If the Minister says, as he hinted in answer to questions, that these troops have been brought into Nyasaland for some purpose other than internal security, then one would agree that my hon. Friend is out of order, but there is no other possible purpose for which those troops could be brought into Nyasaland than that of its internal security.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Colonial Secretary is not responsible for the movement of Federal troops.

Mr. Callaghan: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when the Federal troops went into Nyasaland, on 4th March, they did so because the Government asked that they should go in because they feared for the internal security of that territory. It was the responsibility of the colonial Governor that they were there. Indeed, when it was suggested from this side of the House that it was the responsibility of the Federal Government, that was hotly denied because we were told that the Governor had invited them there.
I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and I think that the Colonial Secretary could help us there. Does the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance from the Dispatch Box that the Federal troops now in Nyasaland have gone there purely for military reasons, and that their presence there has nothing to do with the internal security of that territory?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): I do not know whether I can help the House, although I am very willing to answer. This is just a question of the rules of the House. I have no desire to be obstructive in any way on this matter. I am answering this Vote as Colonial Secretary, and the question of the movement of troops is

a military matter for the Federal authorities. This battalion of the Rhodesian African Rifles is in Nyasaland with the knowledge of the Governor and myself. It is not taking part in anything to do with the internal security of Nyasaland. It is taking part in exercises with the King's African Rifles battalion which is in Nyasaland. The movement of troops is a matter for the Federal authorities. If it be in order for me to answer questions on this matter, I am willing to do so.

Mr. Callaghan: That helps us greatly, because the Colonial Secretary has said that the Federal troops are in Nyasaland with the consent of the Governor. This Vote is a Vote purely about the emergency in Nyasaland. For whatever military purpose the troops are there, they are there also in a state of emergency in Nyasaland.
As the Colonial Secretary has indicated his willingness to reply to questions about this matter, if it is in order, and as it is an unprecedented movement that must be related to the emergency in some way and has been done with the consent of the Governor, I submit that it would be ruling unduly narrowly to deny my hon. Friend the opportunity of questioning the Colonial Secretary about the reasons and the length of time that the Governor proposes to give his consent for the troops to remain there and in what circumstances they shall leave the territory. These seem to me to be perfectly legitimate questions which should be in order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The question seems to depend upon whether the movement and maintenance of these troops are paid for out of this Vote.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I make a submission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Nothing could be more clear than that the pay and allowances of these Federal troops and the cost of their military movements are in no way a Colonial Office matter. It must be a Federation matter. If any Department is responsible to this House, it could only be the Commonwealth Relations Office. I submit that all this discussion is out of order.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I put the further point that the question of the funds from which the pay and allowances of the troops are met


is not quite the relevant factor? As the Colonial Secretary has made perfectly clear, the troops could not be there without the consent of the Governor. They could not enter the territory or remain there without his consent. Since the Governor's pay and allowances are borne out of the moneys which we are now considering, the reasons for his consent and the conditions for the maintenance of the consent must be proper for the House to consider in deciding whether to make this Vote.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Governor's allowances are not paid for out of the Supplementary Estimates that we are now discussing.

Mr. Thomson: Perhaps I can assist the House in this way. I am not anxious to get out of order, but the Estimate deals with expenditure for the twelve months ahead, until March of next year. The amount of money that may be required to meet the cost of the emergency will be very much related to the kind of actions now taking place and, in particular, to the consent given by the Governor of Nyasaland to the arrival of troops on a so-called military exercise at this politically delicate time.
The Secretary of State must know as well as anybody that these troops were suddenly moved to take part in the so-called military exercise at the very time he was being pressed in relation to the ending of the emergency and the release of Dr. Banda. What we on this side argue is that this is utterly the wrong way to bring about a state of conciliation and peace in Nyasaland.
In view of the record of these troops during the period of the emergency, and of what the Devlin Commission said about how they had been used to cow troublesome areas in Nyasaland, this is utterly the wrong way to go about maintaining law and order, with which, as I understand it, the Vote is principally concerned. I leave the matter at that point, but I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us on what ground he justifies the consent given by the Governor of Nyasaland to allow this military exercise to take place at this time.
The greater part of the Vote appears to be devoted to a large increase in the

police force of Nyasaland. According to Answers that the Secretary of State has given in the House, it is proposed very nearly to double the size of the police force from 1,268 to 2,407. This is an astonishing approach to the admittedly difficult problem of ensuring security, law and order in Nyasaland. The House will recollect that the Devlin Commission, on the very first page of its Report, chose to make the charge that
Nyasaland was, no doubt temporarily, a police state ".
That was more than twelve months ago and the word "temporarily" is beginning now to wear a little thin.
That charge outraged the Government and hon. Members opposite. It seems somewhat odd that the Government which considered this to be an unjust charge against it should now react by spending the greater part of its moneys for the emergency on doubling the size of the police force.
Nor is that the whole story. This is not the first increase in the size of the police force in Nyasaland. The Colonial Secretary will be familiar with the memoranda that are sent to him by the Bow Group of the Conservative Party. He will, perhaps, recollect that a memorandum which he received from that Group at the beginning of the year commented on the fact that the police force in Nyasaland had already been increased three times over since the imposition of federation. The Bow Group stated:
That the size of the police force in Nyasaland has increased threefold since Federation is not a symptom of better administration.
The Colonial Secretary may argue, as he has done in the House, that in the past Nyasaland has had fewer police in relation to its population than other African territories. This is not quite the point. The point, surely, is that before we made the political blunder of attempting to impose federation on Nyasaland, it was a quiet and peaceful country with a very small police force.
It is a devastating indictment of the policy of imposing federation against the will of the population that one of its results has been to bring about a sixfold increase in the strength of the police in order to maintain law and order. We on this side suggest that this money


might have been better devoted to other things in Nyasaland which might have made a more effective contribution—

Mr. Henry Clark: It is of considerable interest that, although Nyasaland has had an unfortunate history in the last few months, Tanganyika has had an extremely happy one. At the same time, Tanganyika has had to increase its police force by about 50 per cent.

Mr. Thomson: I wholeheartedly agree about the excellent progress that is being made in Tanganyika. I can only say to the hon. Member that if Tanganyika had been forced into the same kind of Federal framework as Nyasaland, there might have been a somewhat different record of political progress in Tanganyika.

Mr. Clark: Surely it is hardly logical to argue that an increase in the police force is a sign of a thoroughly unhappy and unfortunate country. Tanganyika, a happy and fortunate country, has had an increase in its police force.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be interested to know a figure of which he may not be immediately aware. In Tanganyika, there are about 1,850 inhabitants to every member of the police force. That is the 1958 figure. This is the valid comparison, because the Colonial Secretary says that we must increase the police force in Nyasaland to give us one policeman to every 850 inhabitants.

Mr. Thomson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which so effectively deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark). My point is that we would much rather see this £¾ million spent on tackling some of the kind of problems in Nyasaland that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations mentioned in his speech yesterday. It was a most unfortunate speech, coming a week before the Secretary of State sets out for Nyasaland. I can only conclude that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who was speaking in Luton, had fallen under the polemical influence of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because that kind of phraseology about

the conditions and people in Nyasaland set a most unfortunate tone for the right hon. Gentleman's forthcoming visit.
However, we can agree with the Secretary of State to the extent that there are many things which need to be done in this very poor country of Nyasaland if we are to have the sort of social and economic conditions which, in the long run, are the best guarantee of the maintenance of law and order. I fully agree with those hon. Members about the economic implications for this country if this cannot be done within a federal framework or within a framework of the looser economic association which we would like to see enhanced.
We are not in favour of breaking up the Federation as such. We are in favour of obtaining the consent of the peoples of those territories to whatever form of political advance seems to them desirable, but, in the long run, we may be forced to face the need to give substantial help to the people of Nyasaland, who may have enjoyed too little help from us in the past.
We have just received the Jack Report, a survey of the Nyasaland economy. Professor Jack has done an immense amount of work and has provided us with a unique body of economic information. Everybody interested in Nyasaland will be grateful to him for that work. However, in passing, I must say that I find many of his conclusions both disappointing and reactionary, although I am very glad to note that he laid much emphasis on increasing the number of places in higher education in Nyasaland.
I recollect that in the early part of the emergency I asked the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor how many African graduates there were in Nyasaland at that time. The answer was that there were 22 African graduates, of whom 12 were in detention at that time. We would far rather see some of this money used on doubling the number of secondary school places and doubling the number of technical college places than doubling the number of policemen in Nyasaland.
Again, there is the urgent question of agricultural development, to which the Jack Report drew attention and which is the foundation of any economic progress in Nyasaland. I understand that within the Nyasaland development plan


only £500,000 is earmarked for land reorganisation and land improvement, and yet here we have £¾ million earmarked almost purely for the purpose of doubling the size of the police force.
At the December meeting of the Legislative Council, the Financial Secretary of Nyasaland reported on his visit to the Secretary of State, which must have taken place a short time before. He was very coy about what other things were to be done to meet the conditions created by the emergency. He said that he had put before the Government in this country other things as well as an increase in the police force, but that he was not yet in a position to make any sort of announcement. He said that urgent consideration was being given to a programme of agricultural development.
That announcement was made in the Legislative Council three months ago, and perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us something tonight about the results of that urgent consideration which has been given to the need for agricultural development. Perhaps he will tell us that he will reconsider whether some of this £¾ million might not go to agricultural development, rather than be concentrated on increasing the police force in Nyasaland.
On the subject of agricultural development, the Government sometimes complain about the difficulty of getting adequate co-operation in schemes of agricultural improvement and, in particular, in the very difficult task of changing the basis of land tenure. When I read about those difficulties, I wonder whether the Government will never learn the lesson of other African territories which have advanced further along the road to self government—that economic co-operation can be expected only where political hope is provided.
Economic advance can never be a substitute for political advance. The two have to go hand in hand. We therefore take the opportunity of this debate to urge upon the Government that the best way to maintain law and order is not to hold down an unwilling population by a bigger and bigger police force. The most essential step to restoring social peace—indeed, the first step —which need not cost the British taxpayer one penny, is a declaration of the ending of the emergency and

the release of Dr. Banda and all the other detainees against whom ordinary charges cannot be brought in an open court, and —this I emphasise—a positive programme of political advance to responsible government with real political power in the hands of the Africans in Nyasaland.
The ending of the emergency without real hope of peaceful political progress is not enough. The two steps should be taken together, and before he sets off for Nyasaland next week we urge the Secretary of State to make those two moves— ending the emergency and providing a positive programme of constitutional advance. As a censure on the Government for having delayed those steps for so long, we take the step of moving the Amendment.

6.27 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: The part of this Vote which particularly concerns me is that in respect of the police. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) about the desirability of having political rather than police solutions to the problems in Nyasaland, but I must admit at once that if the choice is between having police in Nyasaland under the Governor of Nyasaland, and, therefore, indirectly under the Colonial Secretary, and having the Federal troops of Sir Roy Welensky in Nyasaland, I am in favour of the police every time.
That may well be the main issue tonight. The troops which have been in Nyasaland have been Federal troops and they have contributed to the political difficulties there. The difficulty in Nyasaland is the difficulty of internal security and not of ordinary crime. The difficulty of internal security is a political difficulty, and if we use as our implement for dealing with that problem something which exacerbates that political problem we make no contribution towards the solution of the internal security problem. That is exactly what is involved by the employment of Federal troops.
The Devlin Report has been mentioned. The troops recently sent into Nyasaland are those who were sent during the emergency from Southern Rhodesia and all of them are indirectly under Sir Roy Welensky. In the words of the Devlin Report, they were used


during the emergency to "cow the population". The Devlin Report says that the troops were used for punitive expeditions intended to make it plain that siding with Congress led to very unpleasant consequences. Sending those same troops into Nyasaland now, so recently after the emergency, is bound to produce precisely the same popular reaction.
These people were cowed by the troops during the emergency. The troops are there now, at a time when the Monckton Commission is visiting the country. Will not the people consider that the troops are there for the same purpose as before? It does not matter to them. They are not aware whether the troops are there for defence purposes, or for internal security purposes. What matters to them is that there are troops on the spot who behaved in the way they did during the emergency, and who may behave in precisely the same way again. To have troops there in those circumstances is to invite internal security trouble.
Despite the risk of sending these troops there—and the Colonial Secretary recognises the risk to internal security resulting from the presence of these troops—they were sent into the country. We were told by the Minister the other day that they were sent for defence purposes, and that the decision to send them was the responsibility of the Federal Government. That means that they were sent by Sir Roy Welensky. They were not sent by the Governor, or on the direction of the Governor, or the Colonial Secretary, but by Sir Roy Welensky.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you were not in the Chair when a similar point of order was raised about half an hour ago, when an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House persisted in discussing the question of the despatch of Federal troops to Nyasaland. Mr. Deputy-Speaker ruled that this was out of order because it was not applicable to a Colonial Office Vote.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the detailed movement of troops not under the responsibility of the Colonial Secretary would not be, but I can see that while discussing the expense arising out of the

emergency there must be some degree of permissible discussion in so far as the movement of troops is a background, or an alleged cause of the continuance of the emergency.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: It is on that basis that I am putting it, Mr. Speaker, and giving the Colonial Secretary the opportunity, which I gather he welcomes, to deal with this difficulty which is troubling hon. Members in all parts of the House.
Are these troops to be used for defence purposes, or are they to be available for internal security purposes? What is the motive in sending them there? If they are for defence purposes, defence against whom?

Mr. Speaker: That is over my line, because if they are not sent there under the control of the Minister it is not much good asking him why they were sent there.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: They were sent there after consultation with the Minister. We are entitled to know what representations he made when Sir Roy Welensky informed him that he proposed to send these troops there, because the sending of troops will have an aggravating effect on the internal security problem.
The Minister has a responsibility for that. What consultations took place? What representations were made to Sir Roy Welensky about it? Did the initiative come from the Minister, from the Government, or from Sir Roy Welensky? What representations were made by the Colonial Secretary, or by the Government, to Sir Roy Welensky when it was proposed to send those troops there?
Those are vital matters to which the House is entitled to have an answer. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will clear up the deep concern which many of us feel about what is essentially an internal security problem. To put it baldly, we are troubled that these troops have been sent there by Sir Roy Welensky not for defence purposes at all, and we want to know what representations were made by the Government to Sir Roy Welensky when he told them that he proposed to send these troops there.

6.35 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Not having been to Nyasaland or to any of the three countries in the Federation, I am always hesitant to say anything on that subject. My feeling is that it is dangerous for those hon. Gentlemen who have been on visits to these countries to assume that they know more than the Governor or the people in the territories. I have always deplored—and I do not mean to be insulting to hon. Members opposite— attempts by anybody in the House to frame his question and make his point in such a way as, possibly, to lead those who have grave responsibilities in the territories concerned to imagine that this country's confidence in them is being lost. I have always felt that that is something about which we should exercise a great sense of responsibility.
The operative factor in this matter is who has the authority to send the troops. That responsibility is obviously outside the scope of discussion on this Vote. It is a Federal matter, and a matter for the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. The agreement by the Governor in Nyasaland for the troops to be sent is a matter which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Even then it seems somewhat unfortunate for us to go on having this wrangling in the House about this issue which was considered in some detail, arising out of the Devlin Report, before the General Election. I do not believe that it will produce any constructive result to continue this battle which has been decided by the country. Before the election the Devlin Commission had produced its Report, and the contents of the Report were well known.
On the whole, most of us accepted the facts in the Devlin Report but rejected many of the opinions. I hold that view today. The Devlin Commission did a splendid job in finding out the facts, but I find it difficult to accept all the opinions based on those facts. That is all I propose to say about Nyasaland.
My principle purpose in rising is to raise another matter contained in the Vote under the headings B.17 and B.18, which deal with the grant to the Cyprus Government of £3,750,000 and with the grant to Nicosia Airport of £72,450, which are more substantial matters for

the taxpayer to consider than the token Vote of £10 arising out of the Nyasaland matter. I realise that my right hon. Friend could easily be embarrassed if we were to ask questions relating to the negotiations going on in the island. I am anxious not to embarrass him on that, but I am sure he will agree with me that there are one or two somewhat unusual features about what is said on page 42 of the Estimates. There is a hieroglyphic—the typographical name of which I can never remember—against B.17 and B.18 on page 40, and on page 42 one reads the following:
Expenditure from these sub-heads will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but he will be furnished with audited accounts. Any balances of the sums issued which may remain unexpended at 31 March, 1960, will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend two questions on that. First, is this procedure without precedent? Secondly, by whom will the account be audited? If we can be satisfied on these two questions it will not be necessary to ask the third, namely, is there an auditor general to the Cyprus Government to carry out the rôle which would otherwise have been carried out by our Comptroller and Auditor General? We are here dealing with a very substantial sum of money—nearly £4 million—and it is appropriate that these matters should have that scrutiny which we expect them to be given by the accountants and the Comptroller and Auditor General when raising money from the British taxpayer.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer, arising out of Subhead B.18—"Cyprus (Nicosia Airport)", in respect of which we again have some rather unusual wording. The item is prefaced by a hypothesis. It says:
Subject to satisfactory arrangements being concluded with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus,"—
presumably by 31st March, 1960—
and as announced in the House of Commons on 25th June, 1959, assistance is being made available towards the cost of constructing a new terminal at Nicosia airport.
The House will remember that in the defence debate on 9th February the Minister of Defence said that we had offered to give up control of Nicosia airport. He said that that was a major step, and I agree with him. We are here dealing with a sum of £72,450 and we are


entitled to ask what will happen to that sum, or to part of it, or what has already happened. Has the work begun or not? If it has not begun and if we do not arrive at an agreement, what happens to that money? Would we then expect it to appear as a reduction on the outturn of the year, or would it be used as an appropriation in aid in the ensuing financial year?
I ask these somewhat detailed questions because these appear to be two rather unusual items in a Supplementary Estimate, and I should like to know whether or not they are to be regarded as a precedent for the future.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) will not expect me to follow him—[An HON. MEMBER:" Why not? The right hon. Gentleman would be in order, for once."] That is a very uncalled-for remark, in view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling. It appears to be more a reflection upon the Chair than upon hon. Members on this side of the House.
My only comment upon the hon. and gallant Member's speech is that from his early remarks he appeared to hold the view that hon. Members who had not visited these territories, or stayed there for any length of time, were not competent to discuss the question, and that the House of Commons should not concern itself with matters outside the United Kingdom. That is an oversimplification of our duties.

Major Legge-Bourke: I do not dispute the rights of any hon. Member to ask about expenditure at any time. I was merely pointing out that the question of policy represented here has been debated ad nauseam, and I was saying that hon. Members intervening with regard to security matters do not know what they are talking about.

Mr. Dugdale: I will leave that matter now—not because I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right, but because I see no use in pursuing it further. Most hon. Members on this side of the House disagree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
We were profoundly disturbed to read in The Times today a report of a speech

by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations about Nyasaland. It has been said that the noble Lord has been misquoted in this case. I want to know exactly how he has been misquoted, and I would ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to clear the matter up. I understand that the noble Lord did not say that Nyasaland was a slum, but I am not clear what he did say. The Times is not often found guilty of misquoting Ministers, but we are told that he did not refer to Nyasaland as a slum. Did he say:
People glibly talk about self-government for Nyasaland, and it is a country that has only about a dozen native lawyers, one doctor who is a properly qualified "—
presumably Dr. Banda, who is now in prison?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman may be quoting an extremely interesting speech, but I find it difficult to relate it to expenditure arising out of the emergency during the period ending on 31st March, 1961. The right hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to that.

Mr. Dugdale: I shall relate them to that, Mr. Speaker. I maintain that if the Government had carried out another policy in Nyasaland the emergency might not have arisen. Many of these difficulties have arisen because of the policy of the Government. I will refrain from further comment upon this matter; I will merely ask the right hon. Gentleman whether those words were used, because it is important that we should know.

Mr. Speaker: It may be important, but it cannot be in order. I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is submitting on the question of policy, but it is difficult to see how the question whether a speech has been accurately reported has any bearing upon the matter under discussion.

Mrs. Eirene White: Surely we are entitled to discuss matters which may exacerbate feelings in Nyasaland and lead to an intensification of the emergency. Surely it can be said that if this speech was truly reported it was so insulting that it might easily exacerbate feelings in Nyasaland.

Mr. Speaker: I follow that argument, but I have not heard it emerge from the right hon. Member for West Brom-wich (Mr. Dugdale).

Mr. G. M. Thomson: The Secretary of State was making what I assume to be a statement of Government policy about self-government in Nyasaland, which is closely related to the expenditure on the emergency. I submit that it is in order.

Mr. Speaker: I follow that argument.

Mr. Dugdale: Do I understand that, owing to my hon. Friends' more successful intervention, I am in order in mentioning this point?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that Minister A is being asked whether or not Minister B has been correctly reported.

Mr. Dugdale: I am assuming that he has been correctly reported. I maintain that if he has, his remarks are likely to exacerbate the situation in Nyasaland, and that it would be in order to ask the Colonial Secretary whether or not his noble Friend has been correctly reported. I do not intend to pursue the matter further. All hon. Members will have read the remarks, and will have found them somewhat disquieting.
A state of emergency has been declared, but instead of money being spent on improving the conditions of the people, which would appear to be necessary from the statement that I have just read out it is to be spent mainly upon the police. To hon. Members on this side of the House that seems to be a wrong balance of expenditure. Not only that —leaders are now being imprisoned. Some have been released, but many are still in prison. In view of the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, it is important that we should consider what the people on the spot think of these leaders. I have here a quotation from an article by Sir John Moffat, who describes what these leaders are like. He says:
These African leaders are certainly men with whom the Nyasaland Government could negotiate and I believe that such negotiations could result in a reasonable plan for constitutional development. I took a careful look at these leaders and was much impressed by them. In view of the emergency, there was an astonishing absence of bitterness.
I can bear that out from my personal observation, and from having spoken to

Mr. Orton Chirwa. Except, perhaps, for Mr. Nehru, I have not seen anybody who has been imprisoned who has come out of prison with less bitterness. This is a remarkable testimony to the people of Nyasaland and their leaders, and I hope that the Government will see their way to release the rest of these people before long. I hope that the Secretary of State will also tell us something about the reasons which prevented Sir John Moffat from visiting Dr. Banda in prison. It would seem to me that the decision must be one primarily for the Governor, and it is up to the Governor to say whether or not he can visit him, because he is the Governor's prisoner, even if lodged in a prison in Salisbury. I will not pursue that matter any further, but I hope that we may get an answer to that point.
I should like for a moment or two to compare the conditions in the emergency in Nyasaland and the conditions in Tanganyika. In Tanganyika we get calm and the leaders are free, whereas in Nyasaland we have tension and the leaders are in prison. In Tanganyika we have racial equality, and in Nyasaland racial inequality. In Nyasaland we have a demand for a better franchise, and in Tanganyika the people are satisfied with the new franchise that has been proposed. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has been to Tanganyika and has himself secured, as all of us would agree, what seems to be a very remarkable degree of unanimity upon a new and better constitution.
Why does that not happen in Nyasaland? Why is there nothing like that in Nyasaland? I believe that it is because of the shadow of federation which has been imposed against the will of the great majority of people in Nyasaland. As long as that continues, it will be virtually impossible, I fear, to get the same sort of conditions as exist today in Tanganyika. I wish it were not so; I wish we could get them, because all of us would like to see these kinds of conditions, and I feel that we ought to congratulate the Colonial Secretary on what he has done in Tanganyika.
I hope that when he goes to Nyasaland he will look northwards instead of southwards. I would ask him to do this. I hope that in the first place he will take steps to end the emergency, because that is the most important thing of all, and to


free Dr. Banda and the other leaders. I hope that he will then call a conference, something on the lines of the Kenya one, to deal with a new internal constitution for Nyasaland, because quite apart from the question of a Federal Constitution, it is vitally important to promote a better and more liberal constitution for Nyasaland itself. I ask him again to look northwards and to consider the possibility of a federation between Nyasaland and Tanganyika which would be far better than the idea of a federation of Nyasaland with Northern and Southern Rhodesia.
It seems to me that there are two roads, one which leads to the fulfilment of the national aspirations of the people of Nyasaland and the other which leads to the dead end of federation. It is up to the people of Nyasaland to choose. I feel sure which road they will choose, and I hope that the Colonial Secretary will help them to choose the right road.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. John Eden: I hope that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) and his hon. Friends will forgive me if I turn the discussion to the Supplementary Estimates now before the House, and ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions on some of the subheads on which a certain amount of detailed information has already been given. I would reinforce the plea made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) for additional information about the control of expenditure under Subhead B.18 in regard to Cyprus and Nicosia Airport. May I, very briefly, ask some straightforward questions on some of these subheads that are worrying me at the moment?
I refer, first, to Subhead A.1, relating to the St. Helena grant in aid, the details of which are given in the Supplementary Estimate, showing that additional provision is required for further issues of grant in aid of expenses of administration. This item in the Supplementary Estimate amounts to £17,000. Could my right hon. Friend give me any information about the nature of the expenses of administration in this respect, and say to what extent he can himself supervise or exercise any control over the expenses of the administration in St. Helena?

Mr. Callaghan: Puerile.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) may object, but the purpose of bringing Supplementary Estimates before the House is to enable hon. Members to obtain information about the expenses.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry. I only want to say to the hon. Member that I think his contribution is puerile because a full explanation of this expenditure has already been given in a debate in the House, and that if we had had the advantage of seeing him present during an earlier debate he would have known the answer.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman should know that a full explanation has already been given of the nature of the emergency in Nyasaland and other related matters, yet he persists in trying to raise them in the House today. Like every Member opposite, he is not concerned with considering other subheads.

Mr. Callaghan: The point is that there is a real difference between us and the Government on these matters. There is no real apposition by the hon. Member to the expenditure of this money in St. Helena, or is there?

Mr. Eden: My opposition is not specifically directed to St. Helena, or any other place. It is not my fault that I have to raise the question of St. Helena, since the Opposition chose this particular Vote to be put down for discussion in the first place. I am concerned to see whether the control which can be exercised by the Government over the expenditure of the taxpayers' money has been properly applied, and I shall continue, therefore, to ask questions of my right hon. Friend to try to satisfy myself that he and his Department, and the accounting officials in the Department, have done this.
Could my right hon. Friend turn his attention to Subhead C.2, relating to the Aden Protectorate? Here an increase of £137,750 is required for certain increased costs in connection with the Aden Protectorate levies. Could he give further details of the nature of this increased expenditure for the Aden Protectorate levies? Is it required for equipping them with uniforms, or certain


expenses involved in their operations? Could he give any further information on that, and also on Subhead C.3, concerning a Supplementary Estimate for £22,000 for further issues of grants in aid to certain States of the Aden Protectorate for administrative and other services? I assume that these are administrative services based on the Aden Protectorate, and staffed and controlled mainly by British officers and personnel, for assistance to the Aden Protectorate States. If he could say a word or two about that, I should be grateful.
Finally, on page 44, Subhead C.14, relating to the desert locust control in the Ethiopian-Somali area, could he tell us about the results so far of the activities of the locust control organisation there? Is it meeting with a better degree of co-operation from the local people in trying to carry out its essential work? It is a very essential service which the organisation is performing there, and it would be interesting to know how far the money which is being spent on these operations is achieving results.
One further word on the question of the British Council, referred to in Subhead F.2. I am sure that no one will dispute the value of the work of the Council, but this is a rather generalised provision, in that it calls for a Supplementary Estimate of £43,500 to meet the increased costs of the Council's activities. That might well account for a multitude of blessings, but it could also account for a multitude of sins, and it would be valuable if we could have some further information about the nature of the activities, and also be told where the Council is carrying out increased activities, which is the reason why it has called for a Supplementary Estimate. Further, why when the original Estimate was prepared could it not have been foreseen that an additional £43,500 would be required?
I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend can provide that information so that I and other hon. Members may be sure that the closest scrutiny and attention of his Department is being given to all the items of expenditure under its control.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I wish to bring the House back to the question of Nyasaland. It is clear that we are being asked to vote additional money largely to increase the establishment of the Nyasaland Police. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: have the Government, either here or in Zomba, seriously considered the observations made by the Devlin Commission on the organisation of the Nyasaland Police Force?
The House will recall that that force was analysed on page 36 of the Report and it falls into three branches:
… the uniformed branch, whose duty it is to police the country and deal with all ordinary crime, including criminal investigation; special units, known as the P.M.F. (police mobile force), designed to deal with riots; and a special branch whose business it is to detect subversion and seditious activities.
The organisation came under a good deal of criticism by the Devlin Commission and on the following page of its Report the Commission draws this contrast:
In Southern Rhodesia, on the other hand, there is neither a P.M.F. nor a special branch. There, it is the belief of the British South African Police, with a strength of 4,250 (one European to 2·23 Africans) and a record of never having killed anyone since their formation in the '90s, that a P.M.F. is liable to be cut off not only from the rest of the population but also from the rest of the police force itself and that the 'riot squad' technique is no training for ordinary police duties; secondly, that a special branch, as 'a force within a force' tends to deprive the ordinary police of their normal intelligence duties as well as, by reporting direct to the Governor, risking sidestepping the overall responsibility of the Commissioner of Police.
That was the view expressed from Southern Rhodesia. The Commission goes on to make this finding:
We have not received enough evidence to suggest that the Nyasaland police force, despite the devotion of many of its officers, has succeeded in making itself a thoroughly acceptable part of the population of the Protectorate with, so to speak, 'its feet well under the table'.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this passage in the Devlin Report has been considered and whether as a result any reforms of the Nyasaland Police Force are in contemplation.
The relations between the police and the population must depend not only on the organisation of the force but also, of course, on the duties which it is called on to carry out. At this moment nobody


can deny that there is a very deep division in Nyasaland between the rulers and the ruled. That is due to a number of causes, but in a very large part it is due to the continued existence of the state of emergency and to the nature of the emergency regulations under which Nyasaland is governed at the present time.
The attention of the House has already been called on various occasions to Regulation 35. I will cite the relevant words:
No person shall do any act or publish likely … to undermine the authority of, or the public confidence in, the Government or the Government of the Federation
If anyone commits that offence, he is liable to a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years or to a fine of £1,000, or both imprisonment and fine. I wish to make two comments on that regulation. First, it has, and it must necessarily have, the effect of stifling practically all political discussion, at any rate so far as the African population is concerned. If I may digress for a moment without getting out of order, there has been the question about who should give evidence before the Monckton Commission. It is extremely difficult for any body of persons to decide to give evidence if they cannot act freely and discuss together. Any sort of free discussion involving any attack on the Federation and any discussion among Nyasaland Africans exposes the persons concerned to the penalties here attached.
Secondly, I wish to comment on the penalties. It is, of course, perfectly true that courts in Nyasaland, as in this country, often mitigate the severity of statute law by imposing sentences which fall a good deal short of the maximum which the law allows. But, nevertheless, it must be the intention of those who framed the law that the maximum punishment should on occasions be imposed.
I simply cannot understand the mentality of the authors of these regulations who seemed to think that a sentence of fourteen years' imprisonment and a fine of £1,000, or both imprisonment and fine taken together, was the appropriate penalty by which to deter criticism of the Federation or the territorial Government. That is one regulation. There is another regulation to which I should like to refer.

I could cite a good many but I will content myself with one, Regulation 28. It reads:
No person shall publish, whether orally or otherwise, any report or information calculated to create alarm and despondency, or which is otherwise likely to prejudice the public morale, unless such report or information is merely a repetition of information which had already been published by or with the authority of the Governor.
If the Governor says anything to create alarm or despondency one can repeat it, otherwise one cannot say it. There the maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment or a fine of £500, or both imprisonment and fine.
It is rather remarkable when one contrasts that with the similar regulation which we had in this country during the war under the Defence Regulations— Regulation 39BA. There also it was made an offence to publish any report or statement likely to cause alarm or despondency. But there was the proviso that no person should be convicted of the offence against the regulation if he could prove
that he had reasonable cause to believe that the report or statement was true; and that the publication thereof was not malicious and ought fairly to be excused.
If he made a statement in good faith believing it to be true he had a perfectly good defence. The penalty in that case —and this was in the middle of the war—was a month's imprisonment or a fine of £50. Compare that with the sentence of three years' imprisonment or a fine of £500 which obtains in Nyasaland. Is it not remarkable to compare these two regulations and to note the comparative savagery of the penalty imposed under the emergency regulations in Nyasaland? The point I wish to make is that so long as the emergency conditions and these regulations continue in force, so long are the people of Nyasaland subject to this extremely harsh and oppressive law, and those are not conditions in which a settlement can be brought about.
The complaint that I make of what goes on and the law which the police have to enforce in Nyasaland is not confined simply to the emergency regulations. The police have to administer the ordinary law and it is worth while to look for a moment at the ordinary law in Nyasaland as it affects the liberty of the subject. Ever since 1909 there


has been in force in Nyasaland the Political Removal and Detention of Africans Ordinance. Only Africans may be removed or detained. The Ordinance provides that if a district commissioner is satisfied that any African
… residing or being within his district is conducting himself so as to be dangerous to peace, order and good government in the Protectorate or is intriguing against Her Majesty's power and authority in the Protectorate the district commissioner may detain any such African …
After the detention order has been made by the district commissioner, the report is made to the Governor and then it is provided that
The Governor may, if he thinks fit, …
direct
that such African shall, (a) be detained in such place and for such period as the Governor may consider necessary in the interests of peace, order and good government; or, (b) be removed from within the limits of the district in which he ordinarily resides to some other district appointed in the said order, and there detained in such place and for such period as the Governor may consider necessary in the interests of peace, order and good government.
Quite apart from emergency regulations, we have this power of arbitrary detention and restriction which has existed for many years in Nyasaland and which continues to operate today. One particular case which I have already taken up with the Colonial Office is the case of M.Q.Y. Chibambo. He is a man of 43 years of age. In 1953 he was convicted of uttering seditious words. He was alleged to have said that the agricultural laws should be disregarded, that offences against the laws of the Protectorate should not be reported to the Governor or the native authority and that such offences should be tried by the people themselves. In other words, he was advocating non-co-operation. He was following in the footsteps of Gandhi and a good many other figures in the history of the British Commonwealth.
That, of course, may have been very reprehensible but it took place in the year 1953, a year when the Nyasa people were greatly exercised because federation was being imposed on them against their will. Mr. Chibambo served his sentence. He served for fifteen months and was released in July, 1954, but he was not allowed to go back to his home in Blantyre. He was at once deported

to Port Herald in the far north of Nyasaland, hundreds of miles from his home, and continued to remain there under a restriction order until March of last year when he was detained under emergency powers.
I wrote to the Colonial Office on his behalf in December, 1958, and got this reply from the Under-Secretary of State:
The order under which Mr. Chibambo is restricted to the Port Herald area in Nyasaland is reviewed by the Governor in Council every six months, and the last review was in September, 1958, when it was decided that it should remain in force.
That is an entirely arbitrary proceeding; there is no appeal and there is no redress. This man goes on year after year without any explanation ever being furnished to him or to anyone else of why it is thought necessary to keep him in detention.
The police in Nyasaland have a very thankless task. That is not their fault. I think it only right that I should say in this House that I have had a good many contacts in the last twelve months with the Nyasaland police, particularly in May of last year when I was appearing before the Devlin Commission. I think I ought to say in this House that both then and when I was in Nyasaland a few weeks ago, I and my colleagues received every possible courtesy and assistance from the Law Officers and from all members of the Nyasaland Police Force. I am not making any attack upon the force. It is not their fault, but their task is due to the relations which now exist in Nyasaland between the rulers and the ruled.
Earlier today when the Monckton Commission was discussed during the debate in an earlier Vote, we had two very remarkable maiden speeches by hon. Members opposite, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell). The hon. Member for Lancaster quoted a sentence which was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) during the debate on the Address when my hon. Friend said that the task of this Administration, newly returned at the General Election, was to restore
African confidence … in the good intentions of the Conservative Government."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1959; Vol. 612, c. 668.]


I think it goes even further than that. I think that when the right hon. Gentleman goes to Nyasaland in a few days' time, his task—and it may be very largely the task of Lord Monckton as well—will be to restore the faith of the Nyasa people in British rule and in British integrity. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will be assisted—I hope he will—by the speech made by the Prime Minister in the Union of South Africa, and that he will also be assisted by what he himself has recently accomplished in relation to Kenya, but in any event his will not be an easy task. When I was in Blantyre last January I had the opportunity of speaking to leaders of the Malawi Congress Party and many Africans I have met on an earlier occasion. We discussed many things, including the question of their attitude towards the Monckton Commission.
I am putting it in the form of a summary, but this was the effect of what they said to me: "What use is any Commission to us? We have had one Commission already. We all gave evidence before it; we accepted its Report as a fair and accurate picture of events leading up to the emergency, but what happened? The British Government accepted only those findings which were favourable to themselves and rejected every finding which was in favour of the African leaders." They went on to say, and this was said to me more than once, "What can we expect from Britain, or from any Commission which Britain sends out?"
On 28th July last year, when hon. Members opposite filed through the Lobby in support of the Government Motion on the Devlin Commission Report, the Motion which picked out merely the findings favourable to the Government, and by implication rejected the rest, they were engaged, no doubt, in a very slick Parliamentary manoeuvre, but I wonder how many of them realised the immense damage they were doing in Nyasaland to British authority and British prestige.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary will be able to repair the damage. That is the hope of hon. Members on this side of the House just as much as it is the hope of hon. Members opposite. There are many things he can do. I will not enumerate them now: I want to mention only two. I believe he could go a very long way to

repair the damage if, first, he would arrange for the ending of the state of emergency and, secondly, if he would induce the Protectorate Government at once to review the permanent legislation in Nyasaland under which persons living in that Protectorate can be restricted and imprisoned without charge and without trial.

7.20 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) with great interest. I do not know the details of the story which he told about the Nyasaland farmer who, because he thought that the agricultural laws of Nyasaland need not be adhered to, was removed a hundred miles or more from his home.

Mr. Foot: More.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he replies, can tell the House a little more about this than could the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, but it seems to me to be a strange paradox that the Labour Party as recently as two years ago was still anxious to retain powers not merely to remove a hundred miles but to dispossess farmers in this country who, under certain circumstances, did not think that the agricultural legislation should be upheld.

Mr. Foot: Was not every farmer against whom a dispossession order was made entitled to appeal to an impartial tribunal sitting in public?

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not want to be out of order, but there was considerable difference of opinion, not confined to one party, as to just how impartial some of the tribunals were all the time.
I share the view of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that, while we are fully entitled, and indeed under a direct obligation, to discuss in whatever detail we like the contents of these Supplementary Estimates, it does not necessarily follow that the views of hon. Members are always better informed than those of the people on the spot who have the unenviable task of maintaining law and order, preserving security and taking the extremely difficult decision whether, in a given set of


circumstances, a state of emergency should be declared.
Nor do I think that we should turn this debate on the Supplementary Estimates into another discussion of the Devlin Report, because, as has been said from these benches, that Report was discussed fully before the election. I can, of course, understand why hon. Members opposite want to discuss it again, because in retrospect it must be a ray of sunshine for them; it is about the only thing upon which they are agreed at the moment. I can quite understand why they are anxious to rehash this old story, while keeping within the terms of the Supplementary Estimate.
But whatever views hon. Members opposite take about the Devlin Report and the opinions which the Devlin Commission expressed, surely there is one thing about which there can be no doubt whatever—and that is that Mr. Justice Devlin and his colleagues fully vindicated the action of the Governor, Sir Robert Armitage, in proclaiming a state of emergency. All the members of the Commission went out of their way to say that if he had not done so he would not conceivably have been able to discharge his essential duties as a Governor. I think that, with the example of the Mau Mau atrocities in Kenya behind us, we ought to applaud rather than condemn a Governor who takes action in time to stop outbursts of physical violence and bloodshed from occurring.
I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that I wonder whether hon. Members opposite would like to be in the position of officers in the colonial police forces serving in remote territories. They are out on a limb, faced with difficult decisions, knowing quite well that if they take action too soon they are almost certain to be criticised in the House and, on the other hand, that if they take action too late, and what might have been quite a small riot becomes a very big riot, they are equally certain to be criticised in the House.
The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich paid a tribute to the police forces in the Colonial Territories. Against the background of events which we have witnessed in the last two or three years, it is perhaps time that one or two other hon. Members opposite, a

few more members of the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, and some who belong to both, should say a word of encouragement to the colonial police forces and have the grace to admit that if they were in their shoes they would not have done the job nearly so well.

7.27 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I will not take very long because I know that several of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate. It is possible that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is better cast in the rôle of Cassandra than I am, but it is several years since I first rose in the House to speak of the problems of Nyasaland. It was rather more than five years ago that I raised questions of development in Nyasaland, of land tenure and of the development of the Shire Valley, and that was at a time when Nyasaland was not a headline country, as it has unfortunately since become.
I am therefore justified in saying to the Colonial Secretary that had some of the things which were advocated from this side of the House been done by his predecessor the lack of confidence in Nyasaland which now exists might never have been created. The discussion of this Estimate, which is to pay for matters arising out of the emergency, is a discussion of the lack of confidence in Nyasaland in the intentions of the Government, otherwise it would not be necessary in the form in which we have it.
May I make it perfectly clear that I am not opposed to some increase in the police force in Nyasaland if that is required? I take the point which has been made in the debate about some increase in Tanganyika. It is true that there are conditions in which one can properly say that the police force is undermanned and needs some increase to maintain its efficiency. But an increase of sixfold, which is the basis of the discussion, is surely quite out of proportion. I am certain that this large increase in the police force would not have been required at this time had more attention been paid to other matters.
If we ask people from Nyasaland why they distrust the Government's intentions they give several reasons. The primary reason, which we have often discussed in


the House, is the political question of imposed federation, but there are other reasons. They feel themselves to have been the neglected territory. They feel that if we in the House had been in earnest about our concern for their conditions, we should have done far more about it in the years since the war.
If I take only one subject—education —we have the Jack Report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred. The Report points out that even now, in spite of the increased expenditure on education—and there has been an increase—only about half the children of school age in Nyasaland have any education at all, and Che larger proportion of those are in school for about two years only. To give a smattering of education to children and then to leave them without further training for a livelihood is to make the worst of all possible worlds and to create a thoroughly discontented younger generation the members of which feel that they have had education dangled before them and that they ought to have had better opportunities in life than those to which they are entitled by a tiny smattering of education. This is one of the underlying social reasons, apart from the political reasons, for the discontent in that territory.
As to the economic development of the territory, according to the Jack Report matters which were discussed in the House years ago are still being discussed, investigated and examined. There has still been no decision about what will happen to the development in the Shire Valley, either as regards the large hydro-electric schemes, which I think are probably not likely to come about, or, what are as important from the point of view of the individual African, about the very necessary schemes for land reclamation, swamp drainage, etc., which would make a vast difference to the prospects of economic improvement for many of the Africans in the Southern Province.
I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to tell us more on the matters about which we have already questioned him. We have asked him about agricultural improvements. Has he a Swynnerton plan for Nyasaland? Does he intend to leave education where it is now? Does he intend to say, "You

can trust the Federation to stimulate economic progress, and therefore we in the House need do no more about it"?
The position in Nyasaland is so exceptional that outstanding action is required by Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Treasury. If there is one country in the Commonwealth of which one can say that there are exceptional and special circumstances, Nyasaland is that country. There is a peculiarly difficult political situation there. That can be dealt with only on a political level, but it would greatly alleviate the political tension and make political advance at least easier if, at the same time, Her Majesty's Government adopted a positive approach on the other matters.
Moreover, to point to a relative increase in expenditure on various services to be provided begs the question. When one starts from near zero, the fact that one is now spending perhaps four times as much as was being spent ten years ago is of little consequence. This matter is not being viewed in proper perspective. It is important for hon. Members to study all the figures closely. For instance, the total Government expenditure on education is less than the cost of a mile of M.1.
I feel that we should not be asked to spend the money which we are being asked to spend on the emergency. Some of it presumably will be used for the purposes mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot). I should very much like to know how much of this Estimate is likely to be devoted to enforcing Regulation 35. Is it to be devoted to paying the salaries of bands of snoopers who are to find out whether people say things derogatory, not merely of Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government, but as I recall the Regulations—I have not the text with me—of a very much lower group of persons in the Governmental hierarchy? To bring any of those persons into disrepute is sufficient to bring one up against the law, if that law is to be enforced. If it is to be enforced, I am sure that it will need much more expenditure than we are being asked to vote to pay people to go round listening to conversations. If that is the only way we can carry out our administration in Nyasaland, we shall have not just this Supplementary Estimate this year but, I have no doubt, a


very substantial Estimate indeed in subsequent years.
We are entitled to ask the Government to tell us not merely what they propose to do on the purely political side concerning the police, but also on some of the more fundamental matters which I believe very strongly indeed are at the root of much of the dissatisfaction and lack of confidence which the ordinary African has in the intentions of Her Majesty's Government.

7.35 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I had not intended to talk about Nyasaland, but as it has been discussed by right hon. and hon. Members I wish to make a few remarks before asking one or two questions on other subjects.
We all sympathise with the views expressed on education by the right hon. Member for West Bromwiah (Mr. Dugdale). I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do Ghat, unless one has a peaceful country, it is not possible to go on with other desirable improvements in the standards of the people. One must remember that at one time in Malaya and Kenya people were forced to live in separate villages in order to have their protection.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is far better to have the police free and not have the people put in separate villages. The people should be given the protection of the police in the way it is being done now. We do not want to come to the emergencies which were necessary in other countries when one was forced to herd people together for their very protection.
I was glad that the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) paid a tribute to the police, because I know that he has great knowledge of Nyasaland and visits the country frequently. A tribute from him will be very well received there. The hon. and learned Gentleman took exception to some regulations dating back to 1909. Since that date, Socialist Governments have been in power. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was so very upset and worried about this, the authorities could have been asked by one of the Socialist Governments to rescind the measure which he so dislikes at present.
I do not think that extra police is necessarily a very bad sign, because as countries become more fully developed they need extra police. In this country, we have considerably increased our police over the last fifty years, and we hope that our civilisation in this country is improving. In Plymouth, recently, despite everything, we have had to take on 37 new police. Even in this country we cannot say that the police force is up to strength. Therefore, having extra police in a country is not necessarily a sign that we are being overbearing. It is a sign that we wish to keep a country peaceful in order to fulfil the further objects that the Government have in mind.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: What would be the hon. Lady's view if it were announced that Plymouth was to increase its police six times over?

Miss Vickers: It has increased its force by 37. I am not sure what percentage that is. Plymouth is also to have some policewomen.
I do not think that percentages really matter. We have had the percentage discussed between Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. There are far more Europeans in Southern Rhodesia to help to keep order, particularly with the volunteer police service. Therefore, I do not think that the numbers are comparable between the two.
We hope, naturally, that the police will be successful in keeping law and order. That will enable the Government in the future not to have to budget for this type of Estimate. They will be able to spend the money on improving the lot of the people individually. I have lived in Malaya and outside the Commonwealth in Indonesia. When one is living in fear for one's life, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to work on improving the social services. One just has to help the people to live their daily lives, and, in many cases, to find sufficient food to feed their families.
We hope that the emergency will soon be over. As my right hon. Friend is to go to Nyasaland shortly, he will be able to discuss the matter on the spot. I hope that he will achieve success equal to that which he has achieved at the Round-Table Conference on Kenya.
I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to two other points which arise out of the Estimates. One is Subhead C.16, "Singapore: Relief of distressed British subjects." We are being asked to vote £2,000 for these people in Singapore. The note says that they are receiving relief against a promise of repayment. I understand that these British subjects and British-protected persons are not necessarily citizens of Singapore. They may come there on their way to a ship, miss their ship and be stranded, as often happens in Singapore. Who is to make the repayment? In many cases it is quite impossible for the individual to do so. I think it would be a proper gesture for the Government to take the responsibility.
Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the Nantina Home, set up in Singapore with the object of helping distressed British subjects and protected subjects, is still in being. There does not seem very much in this Vote for the provision of food, clothing and medical services where necessary. There ought to be some hostel to which these people can go. I should be very grateful for some information, because my experience out there was that a considerable number of people got stranded, and some, in fact, had no home of their own to go to. Does my right hon. Friend really think this sum sufficient for repatriation, where necessary, to the territory from which these people originally came?
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden), I have a great admiration for the work of the British Council. It is one of the best links we have at present between the various Parliaments. We no longer have the same types of people living in many territories—including the civil servants—and in many places the main contact now is through the Council.
The Council also attends to students residing in this country. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Council's headquarters here is really large enough to deal with the number of students visiting us? I gather that the Council has to limit membership of students at its headquarters to those in their first year. After that, owing to lack of accommodation, they must go elsewhere.
I should also like to see far more co-ordination between the voluntary

organisations working for these students. I know that there is a London council, but perhaps the British Council might set up a national council to undertake this work of co-ordination. I gather that in the London council there are 40 or 50 people who represent the different organisations and meet from time to time to discuss student welfare but, as far as I know, there is no co-ordinating link throughout the country between these organisations.
That may lead to considerable overlapping, and also tend to destroy the work of the British Council and other organisations. A considerable number of students still, somehow, seem to slip through the net and do not get in contact with any organisation. The result is that very few of those who have been living here for two years have been invited to the houses of our people in England, Scotland and Wales. We should try to obviate this.
I agree entirely with the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) that there has been a great deal of neglect of education in Nyasaland in the past. The difficulty is that one always has to educate people for something. Nyasaland is principally an agricultural country. Most of the people work on the land, while a large percentage of the rest go to South Africa to work in the mines, and never return to Nyasaland.
I support the hon. Lady in everything she says about increasing educational opportunities. In this work the British Council has a great part to play. I see that this work is expanding, and has been increased greatly in recent years, and that there are further proposals to strengthen future educational activities. Any support that we can give to the Council in its efforts to obtain more teachers will be very valuable.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education held a Commonwealth conference on this subject a few weeks ago, but there is still a great shortage of teachers who are prepared to go overseas. One of the difficulties is the period for which they go. If they are already in a teaching service, particularly that of a local authority, they may not be able to get an assurance that they will get a job on their return, and that their pension rights will be safeguarded.
I therefore hope that the British Council will continue its work on further education. That, I think, is one of its principal duties; not only encouraging people to know more about our country and forming a greater link between the Commonwealth countries themselves, but bringing students here for education and sending our own people overseas to teach. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give every support to the Council in the future.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: As I have been away for some time, perhaps I may be allowed to congratulate the Colonial Secretary most cordially on the success that he achieved in his plans for Kenya. He then had the good fortune of gaining the support not only of the African and Asian representatives but of the moderate European representatives. He will have a much more difficult task when he approaches Central Africa and Nyasaland, because in those territories the moderate Europeans are in a minority. It is the diehard Europeans who are in the dominant position. I extend a good deal of understanding and sympathy to him when he approaches this further task.
I am quite certain that while the right hon. Gentleman has held his present office he has been urging the Government of Nyasaland and the Government of the Federation to release Dr. Hastings Banda. Early this year it was indicated in the Press that his release might take place at an early date. I think it very likely that the Colonial Secretary has also asked the Government of Nyasaland to consider whether the state of emergency there could soon be brought to an end.
I come to these conclusions, not only from Press indications, but because the right hon. Gentleman, since he has been Secretary of State for the Colonies, has carried out policies in other territories which show an approach to these issues much broader than we have had from his predecessors.
I take into account the fact that he must have been very well aware that Dr. Banda has now been in prison for one year without any trial whatsoever. The Colonial Secretary must have had

in his mind the fact that the Devlin Commission, appointed by his own Government, declared that the plan for massacre, alleged by his predecessor, was a myth. He must have been quite aware that that Commission declared that there was no evidence at all that Dr. Banda had advocated violence.
In these circumstances, I am perfectly sure that the right hon. Gentleman's sense of justice would not allow him to be Secretary of State for the Colonies without his urging upon the Government of Nyasaland, and that of Central Africa, that Dr. Banda, after one year in prison without trial, should be released.
If that is an accurate description of what has been happening—and I am fairly confident that it is—I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is that his view has not succeeded in these matters. He has referred earlier—and there have been several references to the matter during the debate—to the increase in the police force. I want to know whether or not that proposal for an increase in the police force followed his suggestion that Dr. Banda should be released. I want to know whether it was not the reaction of the Government of Nyasaland, supported by the Federal Government, to his own proposal that Dr. Banda should be allowed to return to Nyasaland. Is it not the case that those Governments said to him that if Dr. Banda were returned to Nyasaland it would be necessary, in order to maintain order, to strengthen the security forces?
I recognise that under those pressures he did not immediately respond to the suggestion that troops should be called into Nyasaland, but instead himself made a proposal that the police force should be doubled since the police were unobtainable from Northern Rhodesia in view of the condition of unrest which existed in that country. I, with other speakers, would much prefer that the police force should be increased to maintain internal security rather than that troops should be brought in from the Federal territory.
I want to take that history, which I believe the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to deny, a stage further. I should like to ask whether a stage was reached where the Prime Minister of the Federation, in conjunction with the Governor of Nyasaland, urged that troops should be introduced if there was


any proposal that Dr. Banda should be allowed to return to Nyasaland. Is it not the case that because of the fear of the conditions that would arise in Nyasaland if Dr. Banda returned and the emergency were lifted, there was immediate pressure that troops should be brought to Nyasaland from the Federal territory? If and when that pressure took place, on what grounds did the right hon. Gentleman accept the proposal that troops should be brought into Nyasaland?
I hope I have made it clear that I understand the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman. Apparently both from Nyasaland and from the Federal Prime Minister there was advice that if Dr. Banda should be released there would be likely to be an emotional disturbance in Nyasaland which would lead to violence.
I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman tonight that when he goes to Nyasaland he should suggest a different solution from the solution of increasing the police force and the troops. There is one way in which he could safely bring Dr. Banda back to Nyasaland and in which he could lift the emergency without the danger of violence occurring in that territory. That way is this: the release of Dr. Banda should be accompanied by a statement to the people of Nyasaland that there will be constitutional changes in that country giving them a majority in their own Legislature and in their own Executive Council before consideration is given to the future of the Federation to which they are opposed.
I ask the Minister to look at the figures of population in Nyasaland. There are 2,250,000 Africans, 10,000 Asians and coloured people and a mere 7,000 whites. Look at the representation which that population has in the present Parliament. There are a Speaker and 27 members, of whom 14 are official and 13 unofficial; there are only 7 Africans. On the Executive Council are the Governor and nine members. Of those nine members five are official, four are unofficial, and there are only two Africans on the Executive Council.
The people of Nyasaland are in this frustrated position. Africans form the overwhelming majority of the population, and it is undubitably an African society, with a mere 7,000 whites in that territory, most of whom are officials and

managers of plantations without having to the same degree their roots in the life of the country as the whites in Kenya and in the Rhodesias have. The people of Nyasaland have a sense of frustration because their future is to be decided at the coming conference on Federation by a Parliament and by a Government in which they have no voice and in which there is no reflection of their point of view.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that simultaneously with the release of Dr. Banda and with the lifting of the emergency he should say to Nyasaland, as he has had the courage to say to Kenya, "You shall now be given a majority in your own Legislature; you shall now be given a majority in your own Executive Council. When the future of the Federation comes to be discussed you shall have a Government which represents your people."
The right hon. Gentleman should say to Nyasaland what he has said to Kenya. He could then release Dr. Banda. He could lift the emergency without the need of police or troops. He could do it, because he would then begin to act with justice to the people of that territory.

7.59 p.m.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I fancy that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) is to a large extent pushing at an open door. On the other hand, I think that, unintentionally, he has been rather unfair to the Colonial Secretary. The nearer the hon. Member gets to the truth in his speculations, the less my right hon. Friend will be able to say. I therefore hope that neither he nor I need interpret what may be a measure of silence or restraint on the part of the Colonial Secretary as meaning that the speculations of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough are entirely inaccurate.
From the start, I interpreted the movements of troops and the increasing police as meaning that the release of Dr. Banda was imminent. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should be so pessimistic about it. It seems to me—and although it is oft repeated by people of extreme diehard views, it is none the less true— that the first duty of any Government is the maintenance of law and order. If there is any risk attaching to the release


of Dr. Banda—and I think it is quite clear that there is—the first thing to do is to see that there is no measure of unrest as a consequence. Therefore, I welcome the movement of troops and I welcome the increase in the police.
I cannot go the whole way with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough when he urges my right hon. Friend to make the release of Dr. Banda coincide with a declaration that there will be an elected African majority in the Nyasaland Parliament. We should be doing the gravest possible disservice to Nyasaland if we hastened too fast. But I shall be bitterly disappointed if my right hon. Friend comes back and the situation in Nyasaland remains the same as it is today. I think that we all realise that on both sides of the House and, indeed, throughout the country people are profoundly dissatisfied with the present state of affairs, and regard it as purely temporary.
My purpose in speaking is quite simple. It is to say to my right hon. Friend that the majority of his hon. Friends are confident that he will come back with proposals for constitutional advance in Nyasaland—not going so far as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough proposes, but far-reaching proposals for constitutional advance in Nyasaland. We wish my right hon. Friend well. We have great faith in him. We believe that his visit to Nyasaland may light a candle of liberty in that country which will redound to the credit of the British Commonwealth.

8.2 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I congratulate certain hon. Members opposite upon their new-found enthusiasm in probing the minor details of expenditure in this Estimate and for posing as the protectors of the public purse. They deceive themselves, however, if they believe that they are benefiting the taxpayer more by asking questions about small administrative matters rather than by examining the broader aspects of Government policy.
It is surely the political experience of everyone in the House that political inefficiency is, in the long run, far more expensive than administrative inefficiency. If Cyprus had not taught us that, and if Suez had not taught us that, we should be very hard indeed to teach.

In Nyasaland, we have a classic example of expensive policies against which it is our duty to protect the British taxpayer. It is for this reason that we have raised this matter tonight, because of the misapplication of public funds and the unnecessary burdens put on the hard-pressed taxpayers of Britain.
As more than one of my hon. Friends has clearly shown, the emergency for which we are presented with the bill tonight arises quite directly from the Government's denial to Nyasaland of her constitutional rights. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) drew attention to what has been achieved in Kenya, because that, of course, is the answer to hon. Members opposite who say that we must have a bigger police force in Nyasaland.
I think that it was the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) who referred to Mau Mau and the need to protect the public against violent movements of that kind. The Colonial Secretary himself would be the first to admit that the best safeguards against the resurgence of Mau Mau are the constitutional reforms which he has been instrumental in introducing.
This Vote arises directly out of the emergency. If we really want to save the taxpayers' money we ought to probe the Government's plans for ending the emergency, and ending it without any unnecessary delay whatsoever. Every month of delay is putting an unwarranted burden upon the British citizen's pocket and, as such, it ought to be vigorously denounced on both sides of the House.
This is why we on this side found this Estimate so alarming and singled it out for attention. What does it foreshadow? We are here presented with what the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree is no mean item of expenditure between now and the end of 1962. Let us remind ourselves of what it is that we are here voting. We are discussing a total Vote which the Colonial Secretary himself has told us, in answer to Questions in the House, is part of a planned capital expenditure of another £1¼ million on the Nyasaland police by the end of 1962, in addition to the expenditure of £288,000 for what he calls emergency items. Taken


against the whole background of colonial expenditure in any individual country, particularly one as poor and small as Nyasaland, this is a very considerable item indeed.
Why is it necessary? We are alarmed about what is foreshadowed when we take this Estimate in conjunction with the speech made by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. We really cannot just dismiss that speech as another piece of misreporting by those slack chaps the journalists. We have had rather too many cases of this kind lately. I gather that during the last day or two the Secretary of State for War and Dr. Kennedy have been trying to hide behind that one, and they have not succeeded in getting away with it. As a member of the National Union of Journalists, I object to Government spokesmen trying to escape the consequences of their Freudian lapses by blaming the chap who was taking the shorthand note.
It is not just a matter of whether or not the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations did or did not describe Nyasaland as the slum of Africa—a picturesque phrase which I should not have thought any conscientious shorthand reporter would have the time to make up. Let us leave that aside. I am much more concerned about other elements in the Secretary of State's speech. They come under two heads. First, he told his listeners in Luton that Nyasaland could not expect independence for several years yet. Then he added that it was no good talking glibly about self-government for Nyasaland because she was so terribly backward and was a country which had practically no assets at all.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is in the Cabinet just as much as the Colonial Secretary is and, therefore, we have a right to attach as much weight to his words as to any soothing syrup we may be given by the right hon. Gentleman here this evening. We must couple the speech of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations with the very significant words used by Sir Edgar Whitehead in a recent speech when he threatened that Southern Rhodesia would march out of the Federation if the British Government were ever to be so intolerable as to allow an African Nationalist Government to arise in Nyasaland. What is an

African Nationalist Government? It is, of course, merely a Government which democratically recognises that the Africans in the territory are in the majority.
I suggest that all these things taken together amount to a recipe for a continuing emergency. A continuing emergency will be a worsening emergency. It is against this background that we are asked to vote an increase of £1½ million for the maintenance of law and order in Nyasaland over the next two years alone. It is no good the Colonial Secretary telling us, as I know he will because he has already revealed his hand a little in answer to questions, "Well, of course, this increase in the Nyasaland police force will not be relatively large." Relative to what standard? I know one example that the right hon. Gentleman will give us, because he has given it before, and I think that it is a sinister and significant example. He will tell us that the increase in the Nyasaland police force will still give us only one policeman to every 850 people in Nyasaland.
What is the strength of the police force in Northern Rhodesia? It has one policeman to every 550 people. The right hon. Gentleman will tell us that, therefore, the Nyasaland police will still be of only moderate strength. I could give him another example which on the appearance of things seems to support his case. Southern Rhodesia has one policeman to every 590 people. Policemen are thicker upon the ground in Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia than in Nyasaland, but Nyasaland is heading fast to catch up. The significant fact is that these three territories inside the Federation need excessively large police forces.
I think that the real comparison is that which an hon. Member opposite, unfortunately from his point of view, referred to—Tanganyika. He told us that the Tanganyika police force was recently increased by 50 per cent. Between 1951 and 1958 the Tanganyika police force increased by 50 per cent., but what does its strength remain at the end of that increase? We still have in Tanganyika one policeman to every 1,850 people because Tanganyika is a country which is solving its constitutional problems, and I give credit to the Colonial Secretary for the part which he has played in helping it to do that.
Uganda has one policeman to every 1,330 people. If we take England and Wales, we have a crime problem and juvenile delinquency and no one will tell us that we are a more virtuous nation than the people of Nyasaland, one of the most peaceable tribes which would put some of us to shame. In England and Wales we have one policeman to every 1,581 people. Why do we need this sudden strengthening of the Nyasaland police force to bring it into line not with the more peaceful territories in African but with her unhappy neighbours within the Federation?
Reinforcing what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), I put this question to the Colonial Secretary. Are we entitled to increase this expenditure in a poor country which is crying out for our help in every other direction of social development? Already in Nyasaland 9 per cent. of the total public expenditure goes on the police compared with only 12 per cent. on education. Is not this as much as she can afford? If we have this money to throw about, I would suggest to the Colonial Secretary that there are far more important fields in which to do it.
When the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations says that Nyasa-land's assets are few, that she has only about a dozen native lawyers and one fully-trained doctor, whose fault is that? We in this House are directly responsible, and have been for years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East pointed out, we have an intolerable situation in this territory for which we are responsible in which only 50 per cent. of its children get any kind of schooling at all and some of such a quality that Government spokesmen themselves say that we cannot really say that any of them are properly literate.
We talk about spending £1½ million on the police for the emergency, but we continue to deny constitutional development because we say that the people are not ready for it. That is a vicious kind of nonsensical story which is leading us into all this waste of money in Cyprus. Let us stop it before it is too late.
The total development grants alone from this country to Nyasaland during the whole period from April, 1946, to March, 1958, amounted to only £4½

million and we are to spend £1½ million in two years on police and emergencies. Of this expenditure of £4½ million the educational service in Nyasaland for the full period of twelve years received only £670,000. Yet the Government tell us that we are going to pay £1½ million on maintaining law and order.
In 1958–59 the total grants and loans which went to Nyasaland amounted to only £¼ million. We are going to give six or seven times as much in the next two years, I repeat, on the police and on the emergency, and therefore I most earnestly ask the Colonial Secretary to end this nonsense before it is too late. This poor country is crying out for aid and constitutional development; do not let us instead give it the baton of the police.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I want to speak for a minute or two on one point. I listened with very great interest to what the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said, and I think that the whole House and my right hon. Friend would agree with her that we want to bring this emergency in Nyasaland to an end as soon as we can without danger of renewed disturbance and, possibly, bloodshed.
I think that we are all agreed that we want more money to be put into Nyasaland to raise the present deplorable standard of living of the people there who are under British protection. That is one reason why I support the idea of a strong federation in Central Africa.
The point I want to speak about is that which the hon. Lady mentioned about the extra money which is now being made available for the police force in Nyasaland. I think that there was a slight contradiction in her argument. If she wants, as I want, the emergency to be brought to an end, we must see to it that conditions are provided which will enable that emergency to be brought safely to an end.
We owe it to Nyasaland to see that the police force is efficient and that there is an improvement in the relations between the police force and the public in Nyasaland, because whatever may come out of the inquiry in Blantyre I think that there is no doubt that the relations between the public and the police in the Protectorate are not what we should like to see


in a British territory. I am not trying to make any criticisms of the police force. It has a terribly difficult job with few resources. The point I want to make is that we should give it adequate resources.
One difficulty in Nyasaland, and it may be the difficulty in other territories, is that there are not enough policemen on the ground. It may be cheaper or administratively convenient to centralise or concentrate the police force into mobile reserves so that when trouble breaks out in some district or village the riot squad descends and knocks the people about, but that does not make for good relations between the public and the police. If we are to get those good relations, and they are necessary, I believe, for the restoration of normal conditions in Nyasaland and for a steady advance towards greater freedom and a greater degree of self-government, we must see that sufficient funds are provided by this House for the police force to be adequately maintained and for its standards to be progressively improved.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I think that my hon. Friends have made a very valuable contribution to our debate, although I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that I think she was rather more than generous to the Tory rebels. Incidentally, where are they? I have been reminded of the eighteenth century battles when in the evenings the gentlemen retired to their picket lines for dinner. This rebellion seems to have been carried on in much the same sort of way.
I was moved to considerable irritation by the speeches of one or two Tory rebels who have been snuffling through these Estimates trying to save candle-wicks when there are major decisions costing this country hundreds of thousands of pounds, the expenditure of which could be averted by a change of policy. If the rebels do not want to be a cut-rate or third-rate lot, for whom the Whips will have no respect at all, and if they want to do a job, let them attack the Government on policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will be willing to give them assistance at any time. He is expert at organising this sort of thing

and could do a darned sight better than has been done over the last two days.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I hope that if he arranges the transfer I shall have a proper and legitimate share of the transfer fee.

Mr. Callaghan: I should also like to say how much I appreciated the speeches of the hon. Members for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) and Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell). The hon. Member for Lancaster made me feel rather old. I remember twelve years ago, when he was President of the Cambridge Union, speaking against the present Lord Chancellor. I believe that we won. I would only say to the hon. Member and to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West that it is far better that they made their speeches in this Parliament. They would not have had such a warm reception in the last Parliament if they had tried to make those speeches then. However, the winds of change are sweeping across the Conservative benches, and we all welcome this very much.
The Vote that we are discussing is to make provision for a grant in aid not exceeding £725,000 towards expenditure arising out of the emergency. I understand that it is in respect of the police. It is described as expenditure arising out of the emergency. I want to ask one or two quite direct questions. Why is the emergency still in force? Why have the resources and the forces of law and order not been capable of bringing it to an end? When does the Colonial Secretary expect that it will come to an end? What are his plans for bringing it to an end? These are the sort of questions which I should have preferred to hear asked by hon. Members opposite. They will determine whether the taxpayer will have to find this money.
What is the reason for continuing the state of emergency in Nyasaland? There are no armed guerrillas. This is not Cyprus. There are no ships stealing into harbours bringing arms to the rebels. As far as I know, there has not been a single political murder. In fact, I am sure that that is so. No European has lost his life. The only crimes that I can find have been committed are those which would have been committed anyway,


and which had nothing to do with the political situation. There are no armed bands in the hills. There are no riots. Why is there still a state of emergency in Nyasaland? When the emergency was imposed on 3rd or 4th March last year, we were promised that it would soon come to an end. There is no reason why it should not come to an end. Such opposition as exists is channelled through the Malawi Congress Party which has eschewed violence but which is not allowed to organise.
I want to know why 2¾ million British subjects in this Colony are today living under a state of emergency. Is it true that the Colonial Secretary wants to lift the state of emergency and that the Federal Government are denying him the opportunity of doing so? The right hon. Gentleman will say that this matter is the responsibility of the Governor, but so was Cyprus. We have all read the accounts of the part played by the Governor in determining these matters. I say to the Colonial Secretary that the state of emergency in Nyasaland cannot be justified by any unrest that exists, that has existed or is likely to exist in the territory.
The right hon. Gentleman says that if we release Dr. Banda there will be trouble. We were led to expect that Dr. Banda would be released before the Monckton Commission reached Africa and started its work. We were led to believe that he would be free to have consultations with his colleagues in order to give evidence to the Commission. This has not taken place. Why? Have the Government changed their mind, or are they yielding to pressure?
The hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) said in what was, I thought, a most significant speech, "Do not press the Colonial Secretary too hard. You are pushing at an open door". I am ready to believe that this is so. I said this afternoon that there are signs that the Government are lapsing into sanity. Certainly after our experiences in the debate on apartheid in December I would not dream any more of accusing the Government in future of not being willing to accept our suggestions. The hon. Member for Farnham will remember how I was shouted down at the end of the debate merely because I said to

the Prime Minister, "When you go to South Africa will you courteously make a speech telling the South African Government where we stand?". I was shouted down. Hon. Members opposite trooped into the lobbies against us. After six weeks, the Prime Minister took up our suggestion. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I were told in an editorial in The Times that what we said was the height of irresponsibility. The Times did us the honour of attributing a whole editorial to what we said. Six weeks later, the Prime Minister took up our suggestion, and I congratulate and commend him for doing so.
Can we expect the same thing in six week's time from the Colonial Secretary? If so, I shall be the first to congratulate him, although, as I have said before, I do not want to congratulate him too much. There is only one thing which is worse than my congratulating the right hon. Gentleman and that is for my hon. Friends the Members for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and Blackburn to congratulate him. If we want him to do a good job—he has made a good start—I think that we should be sparing in our praise, and I think that we can help him most against his own rebels, his lunatic fringe, by attacking him vigorously. That is why I have put a lot of venom into my attack on him tonight. He should have brought the emergency to an end.
The right hon. Gentleman is shortly to visit the Federation. He is going to Nyasaland. It may be that the police service there should be strengthened, but I. and I am sure other hon. Members, can remember a time when relationships in Nyasaland between the police and the community left nothing to be desired. I spoke to a policeman in the northern part of the territory near Mzuzu and Mzimbi who, by himself, patrolled an area about three times the size of Yorkshire with very little difficulty, apart from the inevitable chicken stealing and the other minor crimes. The reason why the police force has to be strengthened is that the Government have followed a policy that has led to this result. I hope that the Government will take over this part of our policy, just as they have taken over other parts of our policy during the last six months. They are


welcome to them. We bequeath them to the Government with open arms.
I shall not weary the House by going through them all, but there are three simple things that the Government can do—release Dr. Banda, commence constitutional advance, together with an African majority in Nyasaland announced at the same time, and give a pledge to the people of Nyasaland that they will have the right at some time to determine their own future in relation to the Federation. That is all.
I am weary of saying it; we have said it so often. I imagine that the House is equally weary of hearing me saying it. I am, however, willing to guarantee that hon. Members opposite who acquiesce in saying that they are weary of hearing me say it will cheer the Colonial Secretary when he says it—and he will say it. In the meantime, however, we are faced with a Vote of £725,000 of British taxpayers' money to be devoted to objectives which I find repugnant and which I believe to be unnecessary. If the Government had followed the policies that we advocated they would never have had to come to the House to ask for this money. In those circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friends will divide the House.

8.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has announced that whatever I say, he intends to divide the House, it may be thought that there is comparatively little point in replying to the detailed debate. However, undeterred by that, I will do my best.
First, to start on a point on which, I know, everybody will agree, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) and Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell) on their outstanding maiden speeches. We have heard many first-class speeches in this Parliament, but even among those, these two today were notable and I was very glad to hear what they said.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that the Motion which we are discussing relates to £725,000 for Nyasaland. That is not so. We are discussing Class 11, Vote 8, in which there are twenty-one subheads and the one to which the hon. Member referred is only

one of them. It is wholly proper to discuss the other matters and I do not see how anybody can describe as minor detail matters relating to Cyprus, for example, where sums of £8 million and more are called for.
The whole of the sum comes to the figure that I always used to find incomprehensible and now I merely find baffling—£10. No matter what one adds up, it always comes to £10 in the end and the Opposition propose that we should reduce it to £5. I do not know whether the House remembers the story attributed to one of my predecessors, perhaps unfairly to my noble Friend Lord Chandos. When an Amendment was put down by the party opposite to reduce his salary by £1,000, he offered simply to accept the Amendment on the ground that it would not make much difference anyway and the debate could then be avoided. I am rather tempted to follow a similar procedure on this occasion.
It might make for a more coherent reply if I deal first with all the separate matters that have been mentioned and then concentrate on the Nyasaland speeches together rather than try to separate the two issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) asked a number of questions on Subhead A.1 concerning St. Helena. The main reason in that case is that we have to pay an increased subsidy to the shipping company, the Union Castle Line, which calls at the island. The amount was negotiated by the Colonial Office and I am satisfied that, having regard to increased shipping costs, the company makes little or no profit from calling at the island.
The next two questions concern the Aden Protectorate. Those matters, which are covered by Subhead C.2, deal in the first instance with increased provision required, in the main, to cover the cost of famine relief operations which involve the flying of grain supplies to the affected areas, and with a contribution in Subhead C.2 (b) to the Army Vote. That is because we provide a 50 per cent. share of the cost of maintaining the Aden Protectorate levies.
The next question was on Subhead C.3 in relation to the grant in aid to those States in the Aden Protectorate that are


not included in the Federation. The answer is that this is essentially an error in estimating and that the savings from the previous year fell short of the amount then anticipated by the amount now required.
The next question was about locust control by the East African High Commission. The whole subject of financing the control organisation is under review by the East African High Commission. This money is required to replenish stocks of insecticide, which are nearly exhausted.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) referred to the British Council and the money required for it. The additional provision, which amounts to £43,500, is required for library schemes and for the purchase of books and periodicals and has been partly offset by savings elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West asked what had caused the increase since the original Estimate, and I am afraid that the answer is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who headed a committee into this matter with resulting recommendations which have necessitated this expenditure, which I think will be money very well spent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport asked about the British Council with special reference to co-ordination and whether it would be of value to have an additional body. I do not think that it would. In 1954, an overseas students co-ordinating committee was set up, composed of heads of all the students offices. The majority of territories which send students to this country now have their own student offices in London—and a very good thing too— and representatives of the British Council and my office sit on that committee under the chairmanship of someone from my office. I think that that is satisfactory and that it would not help if there was an additional body.
I was asked about the Cyprus Vote, particularly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). I know that this matter is difficult to follow and I will try to explain it only very briefly. The House will see that the figure of

£3¾ million in Subhead B.17 and £4¼ million in Subhead C.19 together add up to the saving which is put down under Subhead B.1. We are therefore dealing not with new money, but with a reallo-cation of money which has become necessary in the changed circumstances and the changed relationship of this country with Cyprus.
The answer to questions about Subhead B.17—Cyprus—and Subhead B.18 —Nicosia Airport—is that this is not without precedent and, indeed, is common form for grants in aid to Colonial Governments. The audit is carried out by the local director of audit. It is not possible to do it in detail, because this is a Vote to make up a deficiency in a budget, but the audited accounts of Government expenditure as a whole are forwarded to the Comptroller and Auditor General in the United Kingdom.
The situation about Nicosia Airport is complicated because when this Supplementary Estimate was produced—in January—we thought that independence for Cyprus would come on 19th February, 1960, and this amount was therefore asked against a total cost of £500,000. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely asked whether money would still be paid if we did not get agreement about Cyprus. The answer is, "No.". Work has started, but it has been started with money put forward by the Cyprus Government and, until final agreement is reached on all points of the Cyprus settlement, Her Majesty's Government will not pay over any money for this project, so that in a sense it is in suspense until we see how the Cyprus negotiations finally go.
There is one last point before I deal with Nyasaland. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport about the relief of distressed British subjects. The small sum of £2,000 shown there is not directly related to the specific cost. There have only been three, of which I have details in each case, since June, 1959, but this provides a fund, and I am certain that it will be more than enough, from which such expenses as arise unavoidably in the current year can be met. Where it is appropriate, those who have had money advanced to them are approached for repayment.
So much for all the questions which I was asked which I think I have answered in full on matters that do not directly


concern Subhead B.16, Nyasaland, to which I should now like to turn.
We all know the situation in Nyasaland. It is by far the most densely populated of the three territories within the Federation. Its African population of about 2¾ million exceeds that of Southern Rhodesia, although its area is only one-third of the size of the latter. We know the essential economic facts of the Federation, that it is largely dependent on agriculture, helped with one or two cash crops, and that what light industry there is is usually associated with the main agricultural products.
I was asked by more than one speaker on the other side of the House whether we had a Swynnerton Plan for Nyasaland. I shall return to that in a moment in connection with the point that I should like to make to the House about the strengthening of the administration. The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) made this point. To put it shortly, there is a Nyasaland Government Development Plan which envisages the expenditure of about £12 million at the rate of £3 million a year over the next four years. The money will be devoted to the expansion of agricultural production and research, and to improving education facilities.
I assure the House that during the visit which I am about to start, I will, apart from the investigations which I will be making into the political situation, be careful to look at the question of advancement in agriculture and education because I agree with what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If from now on I concern myself mainly with political problems, that does not mean that I am not conscious that political and economic advance ought to go together.
The situation is that we have this poor, crowded country, and it has been possible for it to benefit to a substantial extent —to the extent in total of about £3 million to £4 million a year—from federation. One of the most encouraging things that has emerged from this debate is that speakers on both sides of the House —with the exception of the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale)—consider that in certain circumstances, and with certain reservations, federation could and would work well. That opinion came from both sides of

the House, and it is good to have that said. It is my firm belief that that is so.
Nevertheless, what has given rise to this debate is the fact that the special expenditure that was necessitated by the emergency, which the events before and during the emergency clearly demonstrated, meant that we had to accelerate plans for strengthening the administration and the police. That inevitably produced a serious budgetary situation.
I think that I can clear one point out of the way now. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) made a long, detailed and involved hypothetical comment. He said that the question of this increased expenditure on the administration, and particularly on the police, might have arisen from a hypothetical disagreement about the duration of the emergency, or the question of Dr. Banda or any other detainee. I can assure him that that is not so. The Nyasaland financial year runs from July to June, and the expenditure envisaged for this financial year, on matters which I shall discuss in a little detail, amounts to £640,271. The programme of expenditure was approved last autumn, before any of these matters arose and probably before I became Secretary of State—although I would not be certain of that to a day.

Mr. Brockway: I was referring to the right hon. Gentleman's own announcement of an increased expenditure of £1 million or more on the police, which meant a doubling of the police force. That was not before last June.

Mr. Macleod: I think that we are referring to the same thing. The plans for that were drawn up last autumn, and this is the first opportunity, through a Supplementary Estimate, that we have had of discussing this matter, because this is the first Estimate that has come before the House since the Estimates of almost a year ago.
A summary of what has been said about the use of this money was put most clearly by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—not today, but in a supplementary question to me on 16th February. That is not intended to be a reflection on her speech today, but I shall have other small reflections to make on it in a moment. On 16th February she asked:
Would not it be far better (a) to abolish the emergency and to save British taxpayers'


money and (b) to see that British taxpayers' money is spent on educating the people of Nyasaland instead of repressing them? "— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1960; Vol. 617, c. 1107–8.]
If that were the choice there would be no doubt about the answer, but the Committee must not underestimate the importance of sound administration, and of a machine, including the police, which can carry out swiftly and efficiently the wishes of the central Government—and I am not thinking in any repressive sense. If someone goes to the International Bank and asks it for a loan for a certain territory, one of the first things to which it will devote a great deal of care is the ascertainment of the capability of the local administration to undertake the project and carry it through to fruition.
It is at this point that we come back to the point made about the Swynnerton Plan and to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), "Will we never learn the lessons of other African territories?" Many references have been made to Kenya, and that is the very lesson we learned there. Our experience there showed how essential it was to strengthen the administration, and a substantial part of the help we voted to Kenya during the years of the emergency was devoted to the improvement of the administrative machinery. As a result, a terrific impetus was given to African production.
It was from the strengthening of the administration in Kenya that the Swynnerton Plan came. It would have been quite impossible to put it into effect without that. The lesson that was true for Kenya is doubtless just as true for Nyasaland.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the Minister aware that in our criticisms today we have not been dealing with the item of £250,000 in respect of the expenditure on the provincial administration, which is additional to the £l½ million devoted to the police and the emergency? We agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about the administration, but he must answer the point made about the comparison between the police force considered necessary for Nyasaland and that considered necessary for Tanganyika.

Mr. Macleod: I can assure the hon. Lady that I shall deal faithfully with

that point very shortly. I intend to come to exactly that point, but part of this money is concerned with the administration, and the major part, as the hon. Lady said—and she just anticipated my next sentence—is in relation to the police.
After the expansion that is planned has taken place, there will one policeman to every 850 people. The hon. Lady went to great pains to prove that that establishment was too high. I wonder, with respect, if she was not herself a little selective in the territories she took. It is quite true that Tanganyika has a ratio of one to 1,820, but Kenya has a ratio of one to 510, and both Northern and Southern Rhodesia have less than the Nyasaland figure. The Britsih Guiana figure is one to 334, and the Jamaica figure is one to 759, while Trinidad is one to 391.
But the most remarkable difference which I find, and we may have to go to an arbitrator on this matter, is that between the figure of the proportion of police to population in England and Wales which the hon. Lady states and the one which I am given from the Home Office. I am not saying for a moment which is right. I will give the figures. The hon. Lady said twice that the figure is in the region of one to 1,580, but the Home Office makes the calculation of one to 580. I do not know where the decimal point slipped in. It may be that, in Lord Randolph Churchill's phrase, "one of those damned dots" somewhere came into the hon. Lady's calculation. If she would like the precise figures, there are 71,475 policemen and women in England and Wales against a population of about 45 million, and the arithmetic of that, I think, comes nearer to the Home Office figure, if I may put it this way, than the figure which the hon. Lady puts in front of us.
I am sure that she will realise, because she is a very good and fair debater, that assuming, if I can do so for a moment, that the Home Office is right and that she is wrong, she will accept as a conceivable possibility that much of her argument disappears. She made a tremendous case about some of those countries where these figures show that they were not coping with their constitutional problem. It will be very sad indeed if we have to come to the same conclusion about England and Wales as a result of


the hon. Lady's calculations. She said a moment later, in response to some comment from someone, that her mental arithmetic was not very good, and I think that this may be some evidence that this is so.

Mr. Callaghan: So far as I know, they are not yet towing away motor cars in Blantyre, and do not need to strengthen the police for that.

Mr. Macleod: That is an extraordinarily weak argument, like most of the others which the hon. Member feels he has had to put at the present time. Of course, the situations are different. In Nyasaland, there are nothing like the traffic control problems which we have here, but, on the other hand, there are other problems in Nyasaland with which they have to cope.
Anyway, that is the background against which Her Majesty's Government have agreed to provide assistance of up to £1·8 million in the three financial years ending on 30th June, 1962. That is the end of the Nyasaland financial year, as I explained earlier, and the greater part of this sum is, as was said, for the police. I believe, as I think I have indicated, that that too is a wise expenditure.
Of course, we take into account—I say this in reply to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot)—the different point of view expressed about the use of a police mobile force. From the small knowledge that I have of these matters, I believe that the police mobile force should be regarded in the context of it being a part of the central Government just as in the same way the administration is regarded. We must consider this in that context and not in the context of repression, if that has happened. No doubt we are now moving into other times. There are great benefits to come from having an efficient police force and, as I have shown, the figures are not remotely out of line with other territories in the Colonies or indeed with the figures at. home.
I wish to say a word on the question of payment because, after all, this is a financial Estimate which I am discussing. The aid provided is in the form of two-thirds by grant and one-third by interest-free loans.
I wish to turn now to another matter about which we have argued a good deal as to whether it is in order or out of order to discuss it. Most of the points raised appeared to be out of order, but it seems to be in order for me to make some passing comment about the movement of troops This is a difficult matter, not because I have any desire at all to make the situation obscure—the facts are perfectly simple—but because it is genuinely difficult for Secretaries of State to answer on matters which have been ruled upon by the Chair, and which we know are true, but which, if they come under the jurisdiction of anyone, come essentially under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Relations Office.
As I think has been said, the facts are quite plain. The first battalion of the R.A.R. is carrying out exercises in conjunction with the second battalion of the King's African Rifles. I was talking about the constitutional responsibility when I said that this was a defence matter. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn pertinently observed, "Against whom?" Of course it is against nobody. I did not mean it in that sense. I meant that it is a military matter, and the question which I think it fair to ask—I hope it is in order for me to say a sentence or two about it— is whether it was wise.
I do not wish—let me make this clear —to question the judgment of the man on the spot—in this case the Governor —knowing the security reports from Nyasaland. I can assure the House that not all of them are wholly reassuring, because I studied them with great care. I do not wish to question the judgment of the Governor that it would be a good thing to have troops near. I do not think for a moment that one can really sustain the argument—except on the question of polemics in this House—that this could be interpreted in any way as a threat or intimidation to—or protection of, for that matter—those who may appear, or may not appear, before the Monckton Commission.
I think the sentence which would carry most weight in this matter was included in a supplementary question asked on 10th March by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West who said:
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if an increase in the number of troops in Nyasaland is a necessary prerequisite to


the ending of the emergency, that is something which some of us would very much welcome?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th March. 1960: Vol. 619, c. 605.]
It was the view of the Governor that it would not be provocative but would, on the whole, have a good effect, if troops could be near and, as I say—I do not know whether what I have said is in order—I have no wish to question his judgment.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Will the right hon. Gentleman go further in clearing up the matter? He is saying that in the judgment of the Governor these troops were desirable in the interests of internal security. The question of internal security is the responsibility of the Governor and not that of the Federal Government. As I understand it, during the emergency it was the Governor who requested the troops. Under what circumstances was the Governor's prerogative and the Secretary of State's own prerogative overridden?

Mr. Macleod: It was not overridden in the least. That illustrates the difficulty we are in. It is partly a procedural difficulty in that a Secretary of State cannot be answerable for something which, according to the laws which prevail in the Federation, does not strictly come within his responsibility. I think I must leave that matter there.
The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich asked a specific question about Mr. Chibambo. Strangely enough, only this morning I was reading my latest copy of the Malawi News, which is the voice of the Malawi Congress Party, I saw it had an editorial saying: "Welcome Macleod, but …" I shall not go on with the "but". It is fairly extensive and there are a lot of other things, but Mr. Chibambo's name is mentioned in that article. I know only the outlines of this particular personal case, but, in view of the fact that the hon. and learned Member raised it, I shall undertake to discuss the case with the Governor during my visit there if this man has not yet been freed. The number of those in detention now is probably something under 200.
I have been asked a tremendous number of questions about Nyasaland and outside Nyasaland and I have done my best to answer. The hon. Member for

Cardiff, South-East said that he felt he had to divide the House. I do not object to that in any way, because he and his hon. and right hon. Friends feel that the Government have been wrong, perhaps, or misguided over a considerable period. I do not accept that position for a moment, but I should like to establish this one thing, even though we are to divide now. Divisions are sometimes misread outside this House. We understand what we mean here, but in other countries they do not always understand these matters.
In a few days time I am going to Nyasaland. That is a journey I am looking forward to very much indeed. The announcement of my visit said that I was going to discuss constitutional changes, and so I am. That is the main object of my visit and I am very grateful for the different suggestions which have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that we can agree on this even though, for Parliamentary reasons, we must divide on this Vote. I accept and understand that, yet I should like to feel that it is the wish of the whole House that Nyasaland can go forward, both politically and economically, in peace.

Mr. Stonehouse: Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, will he answer the questions addressed to him? When will the emergency be brought to an end and, in particular, when will Dr. Banda be released?

Mr. Macleod: I have said more than once that I have no intention of dealing with personalities, whether of Dr. Banda or anyone else. Responsibility for that matter is for the Governor in relation to law and order and not in relation to a Vote, Questions in this House, visits of the Monckton Commission, or any other consideration whatever.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the speech of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations was or was not accurately reported? If it was not accurately reported, in what was the inaccuracy?

Mr. Macleod: I think that the right hon. Gentleman was not present when, at a very early stage, the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations explained that matter to the House.

Question put, That "£10" stand part of the Resolution: —

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 161.

Division No. 50.]
AYES
[9.4 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Allason, James
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Claphtm)
Noble, Michael


Alport, C. J. M.
Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle


Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tiv'tn)
Godber, J. B.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Arbuthnot, John
Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Gower, Raymond
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Atkins, Humphrey
Green, Alan
Peel, John


Barlow, Sir John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Perclval, Ian


Barter, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peyton, John


Batsford, Brian
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Berkeley, Humphry
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Harvle Anderson, Miss
Pitt, Miss Edith


Biggs-Davison, John
Hendry, Forbes
Pott, Percivall


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hiley, Joseph
Powell, J. Enoch


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Prior, J. M. L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hinchlngbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bossom, Clive
Hobson, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hocking, Philip N.
Ramsden, James


Box, Donald
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Peter


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hollingworth, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bralne, Bernard
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Rees, Hugh


Brewis, John
Hopkins, Alan
Renton, David


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Brooman-White, R.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Browne, Percy (Torrlngton)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bryan, Paul
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roots, William


Bullard, Denys
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Russell, Ronald


Burden, F. A.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sharpies, Richard


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shepherd, William


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Jackson, John
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
James, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Speir, Rupert


Chataway, Christopher
Johnson, Erio (Blackley)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, Ceoffrey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Storey, Sir Samuel


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kirk, Peter
Talbot, John E.


Cordeaux. Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kitson, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter


Cordle, John
Leavey, J. A.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Corfield, F. V.
Leburn, Gilmour
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Costaln, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Coulson, J. M.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Pctersfield)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Crltchley, Julian
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Cunningham, Knox
Lilley, F. J. P.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Curran, Charles
Linetead, Sir Hugh
Turner, Colin


Currle, G. B. H.
Litohfield, Capt. John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
vap Straubenzee, W. R.


de Ferranti, Basil
Mac Arthur, Ian
Vane W. M. F.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Vickers, Miss Joan


Drayson, G. B.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Duncan, Sir James
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Duthle, Sir William
MoMaster, Stanley
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Eden, John
Macpberson, Niall (Dumfries)
Watts James


Elliott, R. W.
Maddan, Martin
Webster, David


Emery, Peter
Maitland, Cdr. J. W.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Whitelaw, William


Errington, Sir Eric
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Fell, Anthony
Mathew, Robert (Honlton)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Finlay, Graeme
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Woodhouse C. M.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
May don, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Woodnutt Mark


Gammans, Lady
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Stratton



George, J. C. (Pollok)
Montgomery, Fergus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, John
Colonel J. Harrison and




Mr. J. E. B. Hill.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Bacon, Miss Alice
Blyton, William


Albu, Austen
Beaney, Alan
Boardman, H.


Alfaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Bowles, Frank


Awbery, Stan
Blackburn, F.
Boyden, James




Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hill, J. (Midlothlan)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Holman, Peroy
Proctor, W. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holt, Arthur
Randall, Harry


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hoy, James H.
Rankin, John


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Brown, Thomas (Inee)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, A. E.
Reynolds, G. W.


Callaghan, James
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred


Carmichael, James
Janner, Barnett
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jeger, George
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Chetwynd, George
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
CCCCROSS, William


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Edward


Colllck, Percy
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Key, Rt. Hon. C, W.
Snow, Julian


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
King, Dr. Horace
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ledger, Ron
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Deer, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stonehouse, John


de Freltas, Geoffrey
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stones, William


Dempsey, James
Logan, David
Swingler, Stephen


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Sylvester, George


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Symonds, J. B.


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nets (Caerphilly)
MoLeavy, Frank
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Albert
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Fernyhough, E.
Mahon, Simon
Thomson, C. M. (Dundee, E.)


Finch, Harold
Manuel, A. C.
Thornton, Ernest


Fitch, Alan
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric
Mason, Roy
Watkins, Tudor


Foot, Dingle
Mayhew, Christopher
Weitzman, David


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Wells, percy (Faversham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, C. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Monslow, Walter
Whitlock, William


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Willey, Frederick


Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Gordon walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gourlay, Harry
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Owen, Will
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grimond, J.
Padley, W. E.
Woof, Robert


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Yates, victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Zilliacus, K.


Hart, Mra, Judith
Peart, Frederick



Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Prentice, R. E.
Mr. Howell and Mr. Cronin.


Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

Resolution agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: The Estimate now before us is one of that very mysterious character to which the Colonial Secretary referred earlier, and unless one is an expert one can hardly understand what it means. When the people of Mauritius read about our debate, they will hardly understand why we are devoting only a quarter of an hour to such a vitally important matter to them.
I want to give the right hon. Gentleman time to tell the House what he proposes to do for the reconstruction and repair of the terrible damage which has occurred in Mauritius. Therefore, I must not spend very much time in briefly outlining the information which we all

have and which indeed the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) on 10th March in a Written Answer.
There were 1,700 casualties in Mauritius as a result of a cyclone that struck the island twice. Over 100,000 buildings are reported to have been destroyed or seriously damaged, and no fewer than 70,000 people—nearly half the population of the Borough of Middlesbrough—which is represented in this House by two hon. Members—are in refugee centres. Not only that, but the whole livelihood of the island is seriously imperilled, for more than half of the sugar crop is said to have been lost. Sugar, of course, can be grown again, but the immediate loss is very severe, and it will inevitably take a long time before the plantations get back into production again.
I am told that the total loss to the island is estimated at no less than £50 million. This, of course, includes the


loss of the sugar crop, a large amount of which was insured, fortunately, under a plan introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) when he was Colonial Secretary. I should like to say that he is very sorry not to be here tonight to add a word in support of my plea for the maximum possible help from the people of Great Britain at this time.
The Colonial Secretary has told us of the excellent emergency action that has been taken. We are grateful to the French Air Force, for example, for the assistance it has given by flying in supplies from Madagascar; to the Government of India, to the Red Cross, and, no doubt, to many others who have co-operated in emergency relief work. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that sufficient supplies to meet immediate requirements, including food, are on the way.
For the moment, then, it would seem that as much as could be done in a hurry and in an emergency has been done, but when we consider the Supplementary Estimate for the aid that will be required from us for the future, we want to know a little more. What more is to be done? We understand that the right hon. Gentleman guaranteed a sum of about £2 million for aid for the island after the first strike of the cyclone. Now, there has been this much more heavy strike, and this much more serious damage.
The island is faced with the sort of thing that our great cities faced during the war. The kind of damage that has occurred has been the sort of damage that occurred in the average heavily bombed city here. It is really of that dimension. What we have to ask ourselves is how far we can use that experience of bomb damage, emergency action and civil defence to help these people.
Are we to send out to the island a team of experts who have had experience in the reconstruction of war damage? Are we, perhaps, to call for volunteers from within the ranks of some of our voluntary Civil Defence services, who have, at present, fortunately, nothing to do, although they have studied these problems very carefully? I am sure that there are useful ways in which they could be used, and that many would volunteer to

fly to Mauritius for some weeks if transport expenses were found. There are experts in our local government service —borough surveyors, and so on—who could be of great value.
I hope that the Colonial Secretary will tell us that he has some plans of that kind in mind. Particularly, I would ask whether he does not agree that in contemplating aid and all-out reconstruction action for the people of Mauritius, it would be as well now to rebuild, in a proper form that could be satisfactory for many years to come, the mud huts that have been blown down. Really tremendous damage has been caused to those dwellings—no doubt, quite easily. These fragile buildings have been blown over by the cyclone without much difficulty. The people had been living in those huts, inadequate affairs, for a very long time. Surely this is an opportunity to be taken for rebuilding that kind of structure on a much more permanent and satisfactory basis, with drainage and other necessities of a more civilised form of life.
Mauritius is a very little-known Colony. I suppose that there are few people in Great Britain who, if they were stopped in the street and were asked, could say where Mauritius was. But, as we who have had the advantage of making contacts with visitors from Mauritius are aware, this is a Colony which is very proud of its connection with this country. It is a Colony like the island from which my ancestors came, in which people speak both French and English with equal fluency. Therefore, I feel that I have a specially warm spot in my heart for this island, although I have never been to Mauritius.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respond tonight in the spirit in which I have spoken and will guarantee all-out aid on a large scale for a permanent improvement in conditions in Mauritius, and will have no hesitation whatever in asking the House when the time comes to provide the money. On this side of the House, at any rate, there will be no hesitation whatever in voting whatever supplies are necessary. Speaking from some personal experience that I have had lately in collecting funds for the relief of Agadir, I believe that the British people have only to be told about these things to respond generously.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and to the Opposition for giving an opportunity, however short before the Guillotine falls at 9.30, to discuss his matter of aid to Mauritius, which is one very close to the whole House. I am certain that the House will be glad when we are able to come back with final plans, and that it will gladly vote the additional supply that will be necessary.
For the moment, this Vote is concerned with a token contribution of £15,000 towards the cyclone relief fund set up by the Governor of Mauritius. I have some doubt—I have such little experience in these matters—whether these token payments are or are not a good thing, because it takes so long to get away from the idea that Her Majesty's Government are just providing £15,000 for the relief of tragedy in Mauritius, whereas, of course, the discussions on cyclone Alix—that is the January cyclone—with the Ministers and the Financial Secretary who came over here to see me a short time ago resulted in agreement to provide from Her Majesty's Government £2 million, and in due course authority will have to be sought for that.
I think that it is worth while that we should make these contributions at once because they are an example to others who may wish to contribute to the Mauritius cyclone relief fund. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak so warmly in his praise of. what other Governments have done, but before I go any further I should like to say a special word about the Red Cross. It was immensely swift off the mark in this matter, as it always is. Its organisation clicked into top gear at once, and it has been of the greatest possible help. It was a tragedy that even while the Ministers from Mauritius were in this country discussing with me financial aid for the cyclone called Alix, the cyclone called Carol, which was much more devastating in its results, struck the island. There were 42 people killed and over 1,700 casualties. We have had splendid help from the French Government who sent a cruiser to Mauritius, and flew supplies in French Air Force planes from Madagascar. Also, the French Army in Madagascar offered to provide electrical engineers and other technical personnel

who are so valuable, the more so because they are so near. The Indian Government, too, have been mentioned. I should like to mention that the South African and Australian Governments have both been very helpful and co-operative in supplying emergency stores. The Kenya Government, because, of course, Nairobi is the essential staging point in this operation, have given very useful help indeed.
We have, naturally, been concerned essentially with first-aid. I believe, and I have been so assured by the Governor, that the first-aid needs are being met. To a large extent they were, I am happy to say, anticipated. Now, however, we must turn our attention to the long-term problems. The right hon. Gentleman asked the very important question: Are we sending out a team of experts? The answer is, "Yes." The Mauritius Government have aleady begun planning their long-term housing schemes, and they are to discuss those with my housing adviser who is to go out later this month. There is in existence a subcommittee of the Executive Council in Mauritius consisting of the Ministers most closely concerned and the Financial Secretary which meets daily to co-ordinate reconstruction and rehabilitation work.
Quite apart from that, there is in Mauritius at the moment a very important economic survey mission led by Professor Meade, of Cambridge University, and there is also a team there led by Professor Titmuss. The economic survey mission is to examine the long-term economic prospects of Mauritius, and Professor Titmuss's team is to examine the possibility of establishing a sound system of social security in the Colony. Both those bodies will, of course, have to take into account the effects of the recent cyclone. I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that we must not only plan but plan soundly for the future.
I have one last word to say, and I think that the House will welcome what I wish to announce. The right hon. Member said, rightly, that Mauritius is not very well known here although we have a great affection for the island and its people. It is difficult for a Secretary of State to visit Mauritius. Indeed, as far as we know, no Secretary of State in office has been able to visit it. In


a few days, I shall be in Central Africa, and I have considered whether I can, at the end of my visit there, go to Mauritius. I have now made arrangements to do this, and I have heard from the Governor that he very much welcomes the visit.
Immediately after my forthcoming tour of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland I shall, between 9th and 12th April, be in Mauritius. I shall be able to see something of the first-aid work which I hope will have been accomplished and something of the long-term planning which is to be put into operation. Also I shall, I know, be able to take to the people of Mauritius the very best wishes of all hon. and right hon. Members of the House.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: We have only two minutes left, but I am glad to have this opportunity of saying to the Colonial Secretary that we very much welcome his decision to visit the island of Mauritius. It is not often that the island sees a Minister of the Crown, and people there are always urging that Ministers should go to visit it. We are very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to go there, and we shall gladly spare him from the service of the House for a few extra days for that purpose. We shall not even mind if he has a little relaxation after the arduous duties which he will have to perform in the Federation.
As regards his visit to the Federation, we wish him well in the task that he is undertaking. We are under no illusions about the difficulties which will confront him. We hope that he will have the same success as he had in Kenya. He will find that any criticism which we have to make will not be factious or advanced in any party spirit but will stem only from the principles which we believe should be applied in these circumstances. We hope that his visit will be fruitful for everyone in the territory, for the Africans, for the Asians and for the Europeans. There is no doubt—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will carry this message from the House— that the best future for the Federation lies in a partnership between all three races, without domination by any one.

Question put and agreed to.

It being half-past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put forthwith, with respect to each of the remaining Resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply but not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution: —

Question,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fifth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Sixth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Seventh Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Eighth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Ninth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Tenth Resolution.

put and agreed to.

Question,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Eleventh Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Twelfth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Thirteenth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fourteenth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Question,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Fifteenth Resolution.

put and agreed to.

Question,

That this House doth - agree with the Committee in their Sixteenth Resolution,

put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith, with respect to each Resolution come to by the Committee of Supply and not yet agreed to by the House, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in that Resolution: —

SUPPLY [10th March]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1960–61

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE

1. That a sum, not exceeding £113,110,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st of March, 1961.

VOTE 2. RESERVE AND AUXILIARY SERVICES

2. That a sum, not exceeding £1,069,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the reserve and auxiliary services (to a number not exceeding 161,100, all ranks, for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and 3,400 all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliairy Air Force), which will come in course of payment during

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

7. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

Schedule



—


Sums not exceeding





Supply Grants
Appropriations


Vote
£
£


1.
Pay, &amp;c, of the Air Force
…
…
1,100,000
180,000


2.
Reserve and Auxiliary Services 
…
…
Cr. 100,000
—


3.
Air Ministry
…
…
420,000
30,000


4.
Civilians at Outstations
…
…
1,100,000
510,000


5.
Movements
…
…
2,740,000
*—130,000


6.
Supplies
…
…
Cr.3,910,000
*—l,080,000


7.
Aircraft and Stores
…
…
Cr. 5,270,000
*—1,650,000


8.
Works and Lands
…
…
3,650,000
*—550,000


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
…
…
10
*—520,000


10.
Non-effective Services
…
…
270,000
—


11.
Additional Married Quarters
…
…
—
*—150,000


Total, Air (Supplementary) 1959–60
£10
*—£3,360,000


* Deficit.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1960–61

VOTE 1. PAY ETC., OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES

8. That a sum, not exceeding £69,997,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1961.

the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

VOTE 7. AIRCRAFT STORES

3. That a sum, not exceeding £238,000,000, granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of aircraft and stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

VOTE 8. WORKS AND LANDS

4. That a sum, not exceeding £37,770,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

5. That a sum, not exceeding £3,700,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including certain grants in aid and a subscription to the World Meteorological Organisation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

VOTE 11. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

6. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

VOTE 2. VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY

9. That a sum, not exeeding £14,044,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of victualling and clothing for the Navy, including the cost of victualling establishments at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

VOTE 6. SCIENTIFIC SERVICES

10. That a sum, not exceeding £19,362,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of scientific services, including a grant in aid to the National Institute of Oceanography, and a subscription to the International Hydrographic Bureau, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

VOTE 10. WORKS, BUILDINGS, MACHINERY AND REPAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD

11. That a sum not exceeding £19,264,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, machinery and repairs at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

15. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Services for the year.

Schedule



—

Sums not exceeding




Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid


Vote


£
£


1.
Pay, &amp;c., of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines
…
300,000
—


2.
Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
…
Cr. 300,000
250,000


4.
Civilians employed on Fleet Services
…
200,000
—


6.
Scientific Services
…
Cr. 650,000
250,000


8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs and Maintenance, &amp;c.—





Section I—Personnel
…
1,050,000
100,000



Section II—Matériel
…
Cr. 5,250,000
1,250,000



Section III—Contract Work
…
5,500,000
3,195,000


9.
Naval Armaments
…
Cr. 3,550,000
600,000


10.
Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
…
—
*—300,000


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
…
700,000
*-l,100,000


12.
Admiralty Office
…
550,010
—


13.
Non-effective Services
…
1,450,000
—


15.
Additional Married Quarters
…
—
*—245,000



Total, Navy (Supplementary) 1959–60
…
£10
£4,000,000


* Deficit.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1960–61

VOTE 1. PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY

16. That a sum, not exceeding £127,240,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.

VOTE 2. RESERVE FORCES, TERRITORIAL ARMY AND CADET FORCES

17. That a sum, not exceeding £20,140,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expenses of the Reserve Forces (to a number not exceeding 337,500, all ranks, including a number not exceeding 325,000 other ranks),

VOTE 11. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

12. That a sum, not exceeding £9,412,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of various miscellaneous effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

VOTE 13. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES

13. That a sum, not exceeding £26,229,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of non-effective services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

VOTE 15. ADDITIONAL MARRIED QUARTERS

14. That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of certain additional married quarters at home, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 333,865, all ranks), Cadet Forces and Malta Territorial Force which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.

VOTE 7. STORES

18. That a sum, not exceeding £64,240,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of stores (including stores for research and development projects and inspection, disposal and certain capital and ancillary services relating thereto) which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.

VOTE 8. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS

19. That a sum, not exceeding £33,910,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings and lands, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.

VOTE 9. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES

20. That a sum, not exceeding £8,260,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of miscellaneous effective services, including a grant in aid to the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.

SUPPLY [3rd March]

AIR ESTIMATES, 1960–61

VOTE A. NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

That a number of officers, airmen and airwomen, not exceeding 174,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.

SUPPLY [7th March]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1960–61

VOTE A. NUMBERS

That 102,000 Officers, Seamen and Juniors and Royal Marines, who are borne on the books of Her Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine establishments, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.

SUPPLY [9th March]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1960–61

VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 317,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1961.

Resolutions agreed to

WAYS AND MEANS [14th March]

Resolutions reported,

That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, the sum of £82,026,032 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, the sum of £2,223,676,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Resolutions agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir E. Boyle.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND

Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty and one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 84].

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES [MONEY]

Resolution reported,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to regulate the keeping and use of radioactive material, and to make provision as to the disposal and accumulation of radioactive waste, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in consequence of the passing of the said Act;
(ii) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State under the said Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETROL STATION, CONDORRAT (ACCESS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I make no apology for raising on the Adjournment a very important problem that exists in the village of Condorrat in the County of Dunbarton. The story as it has been given to me verbally—I have no documentary evidence, since the lady concerned seems to have no documents—is this. The lady and her husband have held the ground in question since 1912. The husband left and the lady is now in a cottage with responsibility for a son who suffers from a rare disease, as a consequence of which he has had over a hundred fractures of his very brittle bones. This boy, therefore, is quite unemployable.
Prior to the construction of the new Glasgow-Stirling Road, the A.80, this cottage was on ground capable of cultivation. The idea was to develop it as a nursery so that the mother could leave provision for her son when she died. As a result of the new road being built, they lost some of their land. Some of the ground has been worked upon by building contractors, and any idea that they had of developing the ground as a nursery is now out of the question. The Department in Edinburgh acquired a piece of land south of the B.802 road for which this lady's husband received, I am told, £235, which seems a hopelessly inadequate sum. Part of the flyover bridge over the Glasgow-Stirling Road is built on land belonging to this lady for which she received no compensation at all, according to her statement. The lady informs me that compensation for the land on which part of the bridge was built was paid to the Campbell Trust. She received no payment for that small piece of land.
Having lost the possibility of developing a nursery, this lady, on behalf of her son, conceived the idea of a petrol and service station. She obtained planning permission from the Dunbarton County Council to construct a garage on the site of the cottage. The cottage is enclosed in a narrow strip of land running

alongside the A.80. She was given planning permission, subject to the approval of the Department in Edinburgh, to have access to the Glasgow— Stirling road.
She has told me—I do not know what she does with the letters that she receives —that she has been granted access only to the B.802, the secondary road, which, by a flyover crosses the Glasgow—Stirling Road, but, unfortunately, the level of the B.802 has been raised to accommodate the flyover. As a consequence, the cottage on the site of which it was proposed that a garage should be built lies at the immediate foot of a gradient of 1 in 8½ which runs at a direct angle to the B.802. No motorist in his senses would take a car down that gradient to fill up with petrol.
I have been out and seen the site and the gradient. I have been driving cars for years, but I would not take a car down there to fill up with petrol. I would go down on foot with a can and carry it back, but I would not take my car down there. It is a waste of time for the lady to have a garage built, because there is no access to the trunk road.
In reply to my Question last week, the Joint Under-Secretary of State told me that the question of granting permission for access to and from the road was considered on safety grounds. I recognise that. I cannot, however, understand why this exit and access on the Glasgow-Stirling Road is refused on safety grounds while in the Borough of Clydebank, a few years ago, an hotel was built on the Glasgow-Dumbarton Road, a fast motorway between Glasgow and Loch Lomond and very busy in the summer. Whatever people may say, in the summer all roads lead to Loch Lomond.
An hotel was built with access to that road. I swear that I will never take my car on that road again on New Year's Eve after about ten o'clock. Why access was granted, I do not know. If I had been in the Department in Edinburgh, there would have been an awful row, because I object to public houses being built on these roads in any case. But there it is. Now, however, when a service station is applied for to enable motorists to fill up with petrol, access to the so-called motor road is refused on the


ground of danger. This seems to me complete nonsense.
Let us consider the site. The garage lies down a 40–50 ft. bank from the road. The length of the plot is about 55 ft. 6 in. The roadway down to the garage would have a 30-degree run-in and similarly a 30-degree exit, which is quite safe. The road engineer of the contractors states that it is an ideal site for a service station, and yet permission has been refused.
It is nonsense to say that permission has been refused for other garages on the road. It may have been refused, but there are already other garages on the road. There are garages further along the road in each direction. Therefore, why this lady should be refused a service station when there are other similar places on the road some eight or nine miles away in both directions, I cannot understand.
Next comes the safety factor. In the centre of the A.80, there is a central reservation. In parts of the road there are gaps in the reservation where motorists can cross. I am the first to admit that if a garage is sited on a road near a break in the central reservation where motorists can make a U-turn across the road and into the garage, that can be dangerous. On this section of the road the central reservation is unbroken and no motorist travelling from Stirling to Glasgow would cut across to this garage, because of that central reservation. Anyone wanting to cross to the garage would have to go a long way down the road before making a U-turn, which is something no motorist would do. As a motorist, I deplore the practice of crossing central reservations to get to a garage on the other side. It is a bad practice which no doubt causes many accidents, but the Under-Secretary need not have any worries on that score, because there is no break in the reservation for some distance.
This young lad, a fine well-fed, well-clothed, well-housed boy of 15, has had more than a hundred fractures. No one will employ him. He is quite unemployable. The slightest accident will cause a fracture. The road leading to the cottage where he and his mother live has a gradient of 1 in 1—, which is most dangerous for him. He is afraid to go over that ground for fear that he falls,

because a fall means another fracture. The gradient is due to the construction of a fly-over.
This cottage and the piece of land which they cultivated and from which they earn their living were all that the boy and his mother had in the world. They are cut off by the road and if they want to get to the village without going up the bank to the old road, where the gradient is 1 in 9 or 1 in 10, which the boy does not use because he is liable to fall and have another fracture, they have to go up to the B.802. So the poor boy is confined to the cottage with no opportunity to earn a living. His only chance is to have this service station at which he could employ a petrol pump attendant and where he could sit in the office taking care of the financial side of the business.
It is heart-rending to see a bright and intelligent young boy in this difficulty. He and his mother are completely frustrated about doing something to help him earn his living. His mother has sole responsibility and has no one to share it. Her assets are few. It may be that the Under-Secretary will say that she can appeal. However, an appeal is a costly business. I told her that it might not be costly, but she said that it might be and that she might have to make several appeals. She said that she did not have the money for lawyers and for appeals and that all her resources had to be devoted to investments for this boy, especially for this service station, so that he could at least keep the wolf from the door. She is quite sincere in this. She does not want her boy to be dependent on the charity of the State or anybody else when she dies. She wants him to be able to get his own living. They naturally feel that they could have done that had the road not been put through, because they had their nursery. But what was once a nursery is now a bank of clay where the road has been built up to go over the fly-over.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will have an inquiry into exactly what has happened to this mother and her son. It is evident that they have had a raw deal. According to what she told me, her husband, who left her with this responsibility, signed an agreement and accepted £235 for this piece of land which, from their point of view, is very valuable. Anyone who saw the place and spoke to the


woman and the boy would realise that they were two ordinary humble people, without any knowledge of the law or education, but just good, honest people. Had they had a wider knowledge of the law and of the way that things are done they might have got much more than they did.
In the interests of the concept of fair play and justice, even for the most humble people in the land, I beg the Minister to see that something is done immediately to improve their position. The access to the B.802 is impossible with a gradient of 1 in 8½. It is no use as a service road to a garage. Any idea that it constitutes a danger on the main Glasgow-Stirling Road carries no weight. The road is not a motorway in the sense of the Birmingham-London Motorway or the Preston Bypass. There are roads into it. There is the road to Kirkintilloch from Airdrie. There are intersections into it all the way to Stirling. That is unavoidable because of established roads and residences and all sorts of interests along the road as one goes into Glasgow or Stirling.
Granting access to this road is vital. Planning permission has been given to build a garage. To allow the garage to be built and then say that no access to it will be provided is tantamount to refusing planning permission. I have no doubt that all those concerned in the Department in Edinburgh feel compassion towards this family. I am sure that there is nothing in any of our regulations to prevent the Department of Agriculture from authorising Mrs. Doherty, on behalf of her son, to go ahead with her garage and to have access to the Glasgow-Stirling Road.

9.53 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has raised a case which quite naturally must rouse compassion in the heart of everyone who has heard what he said, but I am bound to put the history of the matter. It would be fair to divide what the hon. Gentleman said into two parts. First, what he said about general policy for the siting of petrol stations on trunk roads. Secondly, what he said about the particular application, and the policy in the case he raised.
The history of the case is this. With one or two minor disagreements I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, but I think that I ought to recapitulate the case. In August, 1958, Mrs. Doherty applied to the Dunbarton County Council for planning approval to erect a petrol station on her land alongside the line of the Condorrat bypass which forms part of the new dual carriage road being constructed from the Glasgow city boundary to a point north of Denny, a distance of about 16 miles. In December, 1959, after consultation with the Scottish Home Department, the county council signified approval in principle of the application provided that access to the petrol station was from the minor road, the B.802 only.
On 30th December the hon. Member wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and a reply was sent on the 20th January, 1960, in the following terms:
The position is that Dunbarton County Council have granted planning permission in principle for the petrol filling station in question on condition that there shall be no access direct to the proposed by-pass of the existing trunk road route A.80. Mrs. Doherty has of course a right of appeal to me"—
that is, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—
against the imposition of this condition by the County Council and one of my officials called on Mrs. Doherty on 30th January to explain the position to her. You will appreciate therefore that in view of the possibility of an appeal being lodged it would not be proper for me to comment on the merits of the case at this stage.
On 17th February the hon. Member again wrote saying:
I do hope you will give the necessary authority for Mrs. Doherty to proceed"—
meaning to construct the petrol station with access to the trunk road. Again my right hon. Friend replied on 25th February, saying:
As I explained to you in my earlier letter the case may be the subject of an appeal and it would not therefore be proper for me to comment further at this stage on the merits of the case.
As the hon. Member knows, that is still the position. If Mrs. Doherty chooses to exercise her right of appeal it will be for my right hon. Friend to hold an inquiry under Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. At the moment my right hon. Friend has no locus to override a planning authority decision


unless Mrs. Doherty appeals. That would be the right occasion to put forward the considerations which the hon. Member has mentioned.
The hon. Member also referred to the question of compensation. Compensation is fixed either by agreement or by the district valuer, and the person whose land is being taken has a right of appeal to the arbiter. If this lady was not satisfied with her compensation she had the right of appeal. There is no other step that my right hon. Friend can take. He cannot intervene. The question of compensation is not a matter for him. That is a matter for the arbiter, in the event of disagreement.

Mr. Bence: Unfortunately, it was Mrs. Doherty's husband who got the compensation. He has cleared off, and she does not know how much he got or how he got it.

Mr. Macpherson: So she does not know what to appeal against. That is a difficult position, but it does not alter the case.
I do not say this with any acrimony, but when the hon. Member raises a case I strongly advise him to put it forward on its own merits rather than to bring in a different case, decided by a different planning authority, in connection with a different road, in totally different circumstances. The case to which he referred was not related to a public house but to an hotel.

Mr. Bence: What is that but a public house?

Mr. Macpherson: One can make a distinction. At any rate, I understand that this hotel not only has bedrooms, but a ballroom, which is not normal in a public house.

Mr. Bence: It is still a drinking den.

Mr. Macpherson: This hotel is in Great Western Road. Planning permission was given in 1955. A significant feature of the case was that approval was given only after the site had been changed and on condition that while entry to the hotel was from the dual carriageway the exit for vehicles from it was to a side road behind it, leading to Kilbowie Road.

Miss Margaret Herbison: That is only one of the cases

raised by my hon. Friend. What about the case to Crow Wood in Muirhead, which my hon. Friend also mentioned?

Mr. Macpherson: I shall come to the question of this particular road in a minute. I think I ought not to comment on this case at all, but—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

Mr. Macpherson: —I can at least say something of the policy in regard to the planning permission for petrol stations on trunk roads. I think the hon. Gentleman would like me to do that.
Very careful consideration indeed has been given both by the present Government and by the Labour Government before them to that question. The General Development (Scotland) Order, 1950, made under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, enabled the Minister of Transport, who was then responsible, to give directions in the case of development which would affect a trunk road, restricting the grant of permission by the planning authority. Since 1956, when the Secretary of State became the highway authority, the Secretary of State has not issued directions; but, where he considered it necessary, he has called in applications for decision by himself under Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The object of both procedures is to ensure uniformity in policy as regards the national road system.
In 1958, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport each issued a circular to explain policy in regard to petrol stations on trunk roads with particular reference to applications for petrol stations in the open countryside. The circulars made clear that the purpose of these roads is, as main roads, to carry traffic speedily and safely between important centres.
We would all agree that it would be folly to spend millions of pounds on new bypasses, designed to avoid built-up areas and to reduce the number of access roads to the main traffic route, only to clutter up the new road with a profusion of petrol stations. The circular


does not say that there should be no new petrol stations on such roads, but it does make it plain that the main criteria to be applied in considering individual applications are road safety and public need. Accordingly, the Secretary of State has had to refuse many applications, including fourteen apart from this particular case, on the Glasgow-Denny Road. Of course, that case has not come to him yet. In some cases, the applicant wanted a site on the new road because his garage, where he had been established for years, was being bypassed by it. In others, the new road literally passed right over an existing petrol station, but, in all cases, the main considerations must remain road safety and public need.
The circular says this:
It would be contrary to good planning to permit development on the open stretches of these roads which would impair their usefulness for their intended purpose, or would in particular impair the value of any improvements. All petrol filling stations, even on well placed and adequate-sized sites, which would have access to fast open stretches of the road are liable to interfere with the smooth flow of traffic. Accordingly, they should not be allowed unless there is a very good reason, for example, a genuine lack of facilities to ment essential needs or the possibility of replacing an obsolete and dangerously sited

station. Bypasses and new construction providing vast stretches should, if less than twelve miles long in all, normally be kept free of stations.
That is the general policy which has been announced and it is in accordance with that policy that the Secretary of State will normally call in applications for planning permission where it is a question of access to a trunk road.
I am conscious of the considerations which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and of course due note will be taken of everything he has said. But it would be quite wrong for me to comment—as I said before and as the Secretary of State has twice repeated— unless and until the matter comes before the Secretary of State in the form of an appeal and my right hon. Friend has to decide upon it. Then it will be open to the hon. Gentleman to criticise the decision if he is dissatisfied with it, or to applaud it if he is satisfied. But in the meantime comment on my part either way would not be in order. I hope that this debate will serve to make the present policy regarding petrol stations on trunk roads better known and more widely accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Ten o'clock.